Agenda of City Delivery Committee meeting

Chair	Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular
Deputy chair	Cr Kevin Schuler
Members	Cr Hautapu Baker Cr Glen Crowther Cr Rick Curach Cr Steve Morris Cr Marten Rozeboom Cr Rod Taylor Cr Hēmi Rolleston Mayor Mahé Drysdale (ex officio) Jacqui Rolleston-Steed - Tangata Whenua Representative
Non-voting members	(if any)
Quorum	Half of the members present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.
Meeting frequency	Six weekly

Role

The role of the City Delivery Committee is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope

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

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

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

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

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

· Receive reporting from all other Council-controlled organisations.

· Receive reporting from Priority One.

· Receive reporting by Mainstreet organisations as appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Review non-financial performance reporting.

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

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

Power to Act

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

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

Power to Recommend

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

Chair and Deputy Chair acting as Co-Chairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNCONFIRMED City Delivery Committee meeting minutes

4 November 2025

A logo of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

DRAFT MINUTES

City Delivery Committee meeting

Tuesday, 4 November 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 4

6 Change to order of business. 4

7 Confirmation of minutes. 5

7.1 Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 2 September 2025. 5

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9 Business. 5

9.6 Status Update on actions from prior City Delivery Committee meetings. 5

9.7 Quarter 1 Financial Monitoring. 6

9.8 1st Quarter 2025/26 Capital Programme Performance. 6

9.9 Major Projects Update - Transport 7

9.1 Annual Residents Survey 2025/26 - Wave One Results and 2024/25 Benchmarking Report 7

9.2 City Centre Development Incentive Fund - Annual Report 2024/25. 8

9.10 Grenada Street Pedestrian Crossing Options. 9

9.5 Council-Controlled Organisations - Annual Reports 2024/25. 10

9.4 Local Government Funding Agency - Annual Report 2024/25 and Annual General Meeting Shareholder Voting. 11

9.3 Variable speed limit update and speed limit proposals. 12

10 Discussion of late items. 12

11 Closing karakia. 13

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

City Delivery Committee meeting

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

ON Tuesday, 4 November 2025 AT 9.30am

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular (Chair), Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor, Ms Jacqui Rolleston-Steed, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Tangata Whenua Member Ms Jacqui Rolleston-Steed (online).
IN ATTENDANCE:	Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth), Alastair McNeill (Acting COFO - Commercial & General Counsel), Reneke van Soest (General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure), Gareth Wallis (Head of Community Hubs, Arts, Heritage & Events), Kathryn Sharplin (Acting COFO - Finance & Digital), Tracey Hughes, (Manager: Organisational Financial Performance and Corporate), Sheree Covell (Treasury & Financial Compliance Manager), Susan Braid (Finance Lead Capital Performance and Community Investment), Chris Barton (Programme Director: Major Projects), Alex Johnston (Team Leader CPAD), Mike Seabourne (Head of Transport), Karen Hay (Team Leader: Engineering Services), Josh Logan (Team Leader: Policy & Corporate Planning), Emily McLean (Manager: Urban Centres Development), Caroline Lim (CCO Specialist), Helen Andrews (Financial Analyst), Caroline Irvin (Governance Advisor), Clare Sullivan (Team Leader: Governance Services).
EXTERNAL:	Council Controlled Organisation representatives as listed in item 9.5

Timestamps are included at the start of each item and signal where the agenda item can be found in the recording of the meeting held on 4 November 2025 at Council's YouTube Channel (part 1)

and Council's YouTube Channel (part 2)

1 Opening karakia

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/1

Moved: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

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

Carried

3 Public forum

Nil

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to order of business

The Chair advised that the order of business would be as follows

1.	Status Updates on actions from prior City Delivery Committee meetings	Supplementary Agenda Item 9.6
2.	Quarter 1 Financial Monitoring	Supplementary Agenda Item 9.7
3.	1^st Quarter 2025/26 Capital Programme Performance	Supplementary Agenda Item 9.8
4.	Major Projects Update – Transport	Supplementary Agenda Item 9.9
5.	Annual Residents Survey 2025/26 – Wave One Results and 2024/25 Benchmarking Report	Agenda Item 9.1
6.	City Centre Development Incentive fund – Annual Report 2024/25	Agenda Item 9.2
7.	Variable speed limit update and speed limit proposals	Agenda Item 9.3
8.	Grenada Street Pedestrian Crossing Options	Supplementary Agenda Item 9.10
9.	Local government Funding Agency – Annual Report 2024/25 and Annual General Meeting Shareholder Voting	Agenda Item 9.4
10.	Council-Controlled Organisations – Annual Reports 2024/25 – External Presenters	Agenda Item 9.5

7 Confirmation of minutes

7.1 Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 2 September 2025

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/2

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Ms Jacqui Rolleston-Steed

That the Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 2 September 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Business

Timestamp: 5 minutes (part 1)

9.6 Status Update on actions from prior City Delivery Committee meetings

Staff Alastair McNeil, Acting COFO - Commercial & General Counsel

Actions

That staff make the following amendments to the action schedule:

· Meeting 22 July 2025 – item 9.1 – a breakdown of costs for the Tauranga Waterfront Railway Crossing – change status to ‘in progress’.

· Meeting 4 June 2025 – item 9.2: information on total costs of contracts taken in house – change statues to ‘in progress’.

· Meeting 4 June 2025 – item 9.2: a report to the Committee on further detailed consultants’ information – change status to ‘in progress’.

· Meeting 7 April 2025 – item 3.2: Deborah Turner, Public forum ‘Bus Stop Safety and Road Safety’ - that staff inform the Committee if Ms Turner has been updated on this matter and provide the Committee with the information provided to her.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/3

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Status Update on actions from prior City Delivery Committee meetings".

Carried

Timestamp: 8 minutes (part 1)

9.7 Quarter 1 Financial Monitoring

Staff Kathryn Sharplin, Acting COFO - Finance & Digital

Susan Braid, Finance Lead Capital Performance and Community Investment

Sheree Covell, Treasury & Financial Compliance Manager

Susan Braid, Finance Lead Capital Performance and Community Investment

Tabled document: Q1 P&L and Operating Deficit (attachment).

Actions

That the finance staff:

· Provide the Committee with a full reconciliation of salaries and wages 2025 to Annual Plan 2026 including reduction in roles.

· Provide the Committee with more clarity on year-end costs, including accruals in the final year operating costs, and underspend in 24/25, the carry forwards, and more clarity on which have been resolved, and which are waiting to be resolved.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/4

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Quarter 1 Financial Monitoring".

(b) Recommends to Council to approve capital budget adjustments of $12.7m (net decrease) in the 2025/26 financial year as outlined in Attachment 3 of this report.

Carried

Attachments

1 Q1 P&L and Operating Deficit

Timestamp: 1 hour and 16 minutes (part 1)

9.8 1st Quarter 2025/26 Capital Programme Performance

Staff Alex Johnston, Team Leader CPAD

Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

Action

· That staff provide the Committee with a further breakdown of balance in their reporting.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/5

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "1st Quarter 2025/26 Capital Programme Performance".

Carried

Timestamp: 1 hour and 33 minutes (part 1)

9.9 Major Projects Update - Transport

Staff Chris Barton, Programme Director: Major Projects

Action

· That staff clarify the cost forecasts for the Connecting Mount Maunganui project and whether they are within budget, particularly referencing the variance as noted on Attachment 2 of Item 9.7 (Q1 Financial Monitoring – pg. 29 of the supplementary agenda).

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/6

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Delivery Committee:

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

Carried

Timestamp: 1 hour and 46:39 minutes (part 1)

9.1 Annual Residents Survey 2025/26 - Wave One Results and 2024/25 Benchmarking Report

Staff Josh Logan, Team Leader: Policy & Corporate Planning

Actions

That staff:

· Communicate to our people on what is going well, in particular the reduction on Annual Plan costs for consultants and the in-housing of city operations.

· Communicate the organisational reset to the community.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/7

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Annual Residents Survey 2025/26 - Wave One Results and 2024/25 Benchmarking Report"

.Carried

At 11.28am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.44am the meeting reconvened.

Timestamp: 9 minutes (part 2)

9.2 City Centre Development Incentive Fund - Annual Report 2024/25

Staff Emily McLean, Manager: Urban Centres Development

Actions

That staff:

· Create a master list of all city centre budgets (capex and opex) with a comment outlining the key objective of each budget (and example funded projects) to help clarify the purpose of each of the separate budget.

· Initiate discussions with the Tauranga Māori Business Association, Toi Kai Rawa and the Pacific Business Hub for opportunities of associated business members to the Vacant Shopfront Strategy that are/may be interested in occupying space in the Tauranga central business district.

· Provide further details on one of the initiatives the fund supported between July 2024 and June 2025 – specifically the $50,000 for ‘Feasibility Study’ for the development of student accommodation in Spring Street’ - who was it done by and what was the result, if any.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/8

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "City Centre Development Incentive Fund - Annual Report 2024/25".

Carried

The Chair advised that item 9.10 would be taken before item 9.3

Timestamp: 35 minutes (part 2)

9.10 Grenada Street Pedestrian Crossing Options

Staff Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

At 12.31pm, Mayor Mahé Drysdale withdrew from the meeting.

At 12.31pm, Cr Hēmi Rolleston withdrew from the meeting.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/9

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Grenada Street Pedestrian Crossing Options".

(b) Brings the project forward for delivery in FY26 within existing budgets.

(c) Notes that the project will be fully loan-funded by Council at a total capital cost of $161,000, including 20% risk allowance less contribution of $33,521.

(d) Notes that the annual consequential operating expense is estimated at $10,401 including maintenance, depreciation and financial expenses.

(e) Approves the agreed contribution from Generus Living to the project as follows:

(i) 25% of the base estimate of $134,084 excluding contingency totalling $33,521, noting costs will be refined through the design process.

(ii) A further 25% contribution if contingency is utilised at final invoice. Noting contingency funding will not be utilised and is reserved for unforeseen circumstances, for example, rain causing work delay or additional lighting.

(iii) This delivers two raised speed tables at both refuge islands, and a zebra crossing only at the eastern side to support access to the Pavillion.

(f) Permanently retains Attachment 2 in the public excluded section to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

Carried

At 12.35pm the meeting adjourned.

At 12.55pm the meeting reconvened.

The Chair advised that item 9.5 would be taken as the next item of business due to the external presenters.

Timestamp: 1 hour and 24 minutes (part 2)

9.5 Council-Controlled Organisations - Annual Reports 2024/25

Staff Caroline Lim (CCO Specialist

The following Council Controlled Organisation representatives provided the Committee with a presentation (see also attached):

Bay Venues Limited	Julie Hardacker (Deputy Chair) Chad Hooker (Chief Executive) Ellmers (General Manager: Finance & Commercial)
Tauranga Art Gallery Trust	Alan Withrington (CCO Chair of Finance Audit & Risk) Sonya Korohina (Director)
Tourism Bay of Plenty	Russ Browne (CCO Chair) Oscar Nathan (General Manager)
Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited	Kim Wallace (Chair) Helen Andrews (Financial Analyst)
Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust	Ra Winiata Emily Gudsell Alan Tate
Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited	Stephen Boyle (Chief Executive)

Action

· That staff review the ability to have standardised accounting treatment and reporting across all Council Controlled Organisations.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/10

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the City Delivery Committee:

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

(b) Receives the Annual Reports 2024/25 for the year to 30 June 2025 for:

I. Bay Venues Limited (Attachment 1 of this report);

II. Tauranga Art Gallery Trust (Attachment 2 of this report);

III. Tourism Bay of Plenty (Attachment 3 of this report);

IV. Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited (Attachment 4 of this report);

V. Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust (Attachment 5 of this report); and

VI. Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited (Attachment 6 of this report).

Carried

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/11

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the City Delivery Committee:

(c) Notes its concern that information has been withheld by Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and resolves that Council Controlled Organisations respond proactively to questions from Elected Members and provide information as requested.

For: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Rod Taylor and Cr Jacqui Rolleston-Steed.

Against: Cr Marten Rozeboom and Cr Kevin Schuler.

Carried 6/2

Attachments

1 Bay Venues Presentation

2 Tauranga Art Gallery Trust

3 Tourism Bay of Plenty Presentation

4 Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust presentation

5 Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited presentation

Timestamp: 2 hours and 49 minutes (part 2)

9.4 Local Government Funding Agency - Annual Report 2024/25 and Annual General Meeting Shareholder Voting

Staff Caroline Lim

Kathryn Sharplin

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/12

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Local Government Funding Agency - Annual Report 2024/25 and Annual General Meeting Shareholder Voting".

(b) Receives the Local Government Funding Agency’s Annual Report 2024/25 (Attachment 1 of this report).

(c) Receives the Local Government Funding Agency’s Letter to its Shareholders on its Annual Report 2024/25 (Attachment 2 of this report).

(d) Notes the Letter of Recommendations from the Shareholders Council (Attachment 3 of this report).

(e) Approves the following resolutions to allow voting by proxy for the Local Government Funding Agency Annual General Meeting (Attachments 4 and 5 of this report):

(i) Approve the re-election of Helen Robinson as an Independent Director (Proxy Form Resolution 1(a));

(ii) Approve the election of Paul Anderson as an Independent Director (Proxy Form Resolution 1(b));

(iii) Approve the re-election of Christchurch City Council as a Nominating Local Authority to the Shareholders Council (Proxy Form Resolution 2(a));

(iv) Approve the re-election of Tasman District Council as a Nominating Local Authority to the Shareholders Council (Proxy Form Resolution 2(b)).

(f) Authorise by way of proxy, the Tauranga City Council Mayor or Deputy Mayor to sign the proxy form and for the Chair of the Local Government Funding Agency to act as the proxy on behalf of Tauranga City Council.

Carried

Timestamp: 2 hours and 54 minutes (part 2)

9.3 Variable speed limit update and speed limit proposals

Staff Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Committee Resolution CDC/25/6/13

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Variable speed limit update and speed limit proposals".

(b) Approves public consultation on the following proposed speed limit changes:

(i) Truman Lane: Temporary 50 km/h limit introduced during Baylink project is no longer enforceable. Proposal to make it permanent.

(ii) Gasson Lane: Amend the speed limit from 100km/h to 60km/h.

(iii) Welcome Bay Road: Proposal to reduce a 210m section from 80 km/h to 50 km/h to enable a mandatory school zone at Tauranga Waldorf School.

(iv) Domain Road interchange – adjust the section from Te Puke highway to the interchange from 50km/h to 80km/h to provide consistency at the interchange.

(c) The final recommendations will be presented to Council for approval once consultation has concluded and submissions have been received and considered.

Carried

10 Discussion of late items

Nil

11 Closing karakia

Cr Steve Morris closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 3:43pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 15 December 2025.

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

15 December 2025

9.3 Aspen Reserve Upgrade Options

File Number: A19261597

Author: Ana Hancock, Team Leader: Design

Emily McLean, Manager: Urban Centres Development

Authoriser: Mike Seabourne, Acting General Manager Operations and Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek direction on the proposed enhancement of Aspen Reserve, particularly the appropriate level of investment for this space.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Aspen Reserve Upgrade Options".

(b) Approves Option 1 for the development of Aspen Reserve.

Executive Summary

2. At the City Delivery Committee Meeting 7 April 2025, the Committee decided to let the report to lie on the table in order for Councillor’s to discuss more value for money options for the upgrade of Aspen Reserve. The reasons report was left to lie on the table include:

(a) Staff will organise a workshop for Councillors to enable them to agree on an acceptable scope for the Aspen Reserve work/upgrades from a safety and security perspective, consistent with a value for money approach and provide information on the operational expenditure.

(b) A need for Councillors to understand broader decisions around the Annual Plan and the impact on City Centre budgets before making a decision.

3. The Council workshop was held on 28 August 2025. Staff defined the three key problems to be solved by the upgrade and the corresponding key outcomes for the project. There were safety concerns, limited usability and future pressure (more detail is provided in Attachment 1). Staff presented a range of options which could be delivered individually or together which responded to the problems and objectives for the project. These were:

(a) An accessible footpath from McLean Street and additional seating;

(b) Terracing the grass slope;

(d) Creating a deck around the pohutukawa tree with lighting; and/or

(e) Providing universal access from Willow Street and McLean Street.

4. The Councillors asked staff to develop options (a) and (d) further. Staff were also asked to:

(a) Work with TCC asset managers and City Ops to remove the yew trees, come up with a plan to improve planting at top and bottom of the reserve, and plant additional trees throughout the reserve for shade;

(b) Work with Mana Whenua and identify opportunities for cultural expression and storytelling;

(d) Protect the historic wall and consider the development of interpretive signage.

These actions are being progressed.

5. Since that meeting staff have:

(a) proposed the addition of a fourth outcome: Celebrate heritage and cultural identity.

(b) met onsite with Mana Whenua and identified opportunities for cultural expression;

(c) are looking into options for how to proceed with an application to the Public Art Fund. According to the Public Art Fund Policy, Council is unable to apply for funding for projects under $50,000. Options include bundling an application for the mural with other public art applications or working with an external party to apply for funding on Council’s behalf. A Mana Whenua representative has suggested a theme and an artist for the mural however this has not been finalised or approved by all Mana Whenua.

(d) met with the surrounding businesses to share plans for the upgrade. (Mana Whenua and neighbouring businesses indicated support for an upgrade);

(e) removed the two yew trees; and

(f) developed two design options:

(i) Option 1 combines options (a) accessible footpath and seating and (d) tree deck with lighting as presented at the Council workshop.

(ii) Option 2 provides (a) accessible footpath and seating.

Both options include opportunities for cultural expression, signage, improved planting and trees for shade. Regarding item 4(d) protection of the historic wall, Option A proposes removing the section of the wall damaged by the tree roots of the pohutukawa and building a deck over and around the wall. Option B leaves the wall including the damaged section fully intact.

6. We are now bringing this matter back to Councillors for a decision on which option to proceed with.

7. Next steps include:

(a) Work with Mana Whenua to progress opportunities for cultural expression

(b) Apply to the Public Art Fund;

(c) Complete detailed design for the selected option and work with City Ops and a contractor to complete construction and planting before the end of the financial year; and

(d) Keep the adjacent businesses informed as the project progresses.

Background

8. This report seeks direction on the proposed enhancement of Aspen Reserve, a small reserve on the corner of Willow and McLean Streets. Historically the site was used for gardening, then hitching horses next to the old post office and then later as the location for a large tree. Aspen reserve was named after a large poplar tree (mistakenly thought to be an Aspen) planted in the mid 1860’s. The tree remained until 2011 when it was removed for health and safety reasons. Today, Aspen Reserve is surrounded by office buildings and provides a valuable green space in the city centre. The land is steep, with a four-metre fall from top to bottom, and includes a natural amphitheatre previously used for events.

9. The reserve is diagonally opposite the new Ministry of Justice Courthouse, currently under construction (see Figure 1). Its proximity to the new courthouse creates an opportunity to develop the reserve into a contemporary inner-city “sanctuary space,” as identified in the City Centre Action and Investment Plan (CCAIP). The upgraded reserve could provide respite for courthouse visitors and staff, as well as office workers nearby.

Figure 1: Location of Aspen Reserve

10. In response to the problems identified at the reserve (see Attachment 1), Staff have identified four key outcomes for the upgrade:

(a) Improve safety and perceptions of safety: make the Reserve look cared for and increase its visual appeal to reduce safety concerns and encourage community use.

(b) Increase usability and access: transform the Reserve into a functional and inclusive public space by mitigating physical barriers, adjusting levels and adding essential infrastructure.

(d) Celebrate heritage and cultural identity: enhance the Reserve’s heritage features and provide spaces for cultural recognition and expression, fostering a sense of place and community pride.

11. The future vision for Aspen Reserve is for it to be:

A safe, inclusive, and vibrant green space that honours heritage, celebrates cultural identity, and becomes a sought-after destination for the growing number of people living, working, and visiting this part of the city.

12. Staff received the following feedback and direction from Councillors at the August workshop:

(a) There was general agreement with the problem statements and key objectives;

(b) There was support for considering low-impact design principles both from a cost perspective as well as protecting the ‘untouched’ character of the Reserve;

(c) There was some support for increasing lighting within the Reserve to provide better safety outcomes as well as to enhance the after-hour experience of the Reserve;

(d) There was limited support for terracing the sloping banks of the Reserve;

(e) There was support for low-cost interventions that achieves landscaping improvements at the lower level of the Reserve, accessible access (at least) from McLean Street, and improving the space around the base of the Pohutukawa Tree, while considering the heritage nature of the stone walls;

(f) There was some support for a phased approach where updates to the Reserve could be made over time; and

(g) Councillors asked staff to consider applying to the Public Art Fund to bring a mural and/or mahi toi into the Reserve;

13. In response, staff have developed two concepts for the enhancement of Aspen Reserve (Attachment 2).

(a) Option 1 provides accessible access across the top of the Reserve from Willow Street and McLean Street. It incorporates a timber deck around the Pohutukawa tree and lighting, as well as a picnic table under the shade of the Pohutukawa, and a chess table in the sun, Option 1 also provides an opportunity for the neighbouring business at 17 Harrington Street to open directly on the reserve, therefore providing additional opportunities for activation and passive surveillance.

(b) Option 2 omits some of the features that make access to the reserve from Willow Street more inviting, specifically the deck around the Pohutukawa tree and lighting. The accessible footpath is shortened, only providing access from McLean Street.

Both options include opportunities for cultural expression, signage, improved planting and trees for shade.

The delivery of Option 1 is likely to cost a maximum of $350k, including staff time for design and project management and archaeological observations. Option 2 is anticipated to cost a maximum of $200,000. Further detail on these two options is provided in the options analysis section of this report.

Statutory Context

14. Aspen Reserve is classified as a recreation reserve in the Reserves Act. Categorised as a unique urban space in the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan (TRMP), the Reserve provides valuable amenity open space in an area of high population density. The TRMP also states that the Reserve should provide facilities to enable events, although this may no longer be appropriate given proposed investment in the city centre to create other event spaces e.g. Te Manawataki o Te Papa and the Waterfront North Reserve.

15. There are a number of archaeological features on and surrounding the reserve so an archaeological authority will be required.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

16. 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 that is easy to move around	☐
We are a city that supports business and education	ü
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	☐

17. Within the City Centre Action and Investment Plan (CCAIP), Aspen Reserve is a key feature of the Justice Precinct. Upgrading Aspen Reserve is identified as one of three priority actions within the Justice Precinct, described as: “upgrade Aspen Reserve, to support the Ministry of Justice courthouse and campus and as a ‘sanctuary space’ in the short term”.

18. This project also contributes to a key objective within the CCAIP “a city centre for people” as part of the work to “Develop and deliver a programme of upgrades to existing parks and open spaces considering the needs of both visitors and residents.”

19. Aspen Reserve is also located along Te Manawa Huanui, the pedestrian focussed north-south walking route that connects Te Manawataki o Te Papa with the significant heritage precinct north of the city centre (including Taumatakahawai/Monmouth Redoubt, the Ōtamataha Mission Cemetery, and the Elms.)

Options Analysis

20. Option 1 provides:

(a) Universal access across the top of the reserve from Willow Street to McLean Street. Access is provided both through compliant 1:20 gradients and stairs with compliant handrails;

(b) A timber deck around the Pohutukawa that provides access into the Reserve and areas for informal seating drawing people into the space;

(c) Lighting of the Pohutukawa. It is currently proposed to have the same lighting treatment as the trees in Red Square and on Grey Street;

(d) A picnic table in the shade under the Pohutukawa and a chess table in the sun, providing seasonal seating options;

(e) A variety of seating – both formal and informal;

(f) Amenity planting at the top and bottom of the reserve, with groups of shade trees to unify the reserve;

(g) Screening of the adjacent carpark behind LiquorLand with planting;

(h) Opportunities for cultural expression;

(i) Signage; and

(j) An opportunity for the neighbouring business at 17 Harrington Street to open directly on the reserve, therefore providing additional opportunities for activation and passive surveillance.

21. Option 1 is proposed to be delivered within a budget of ~ $350k which includes internal staff design and project management time.

Figure 2: Option 1

A map of a lake

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

22. Option 2 provides:

(a) A shorter accessible access from McLean Street only;

(b) Seating under the Pohutukawa and a chess table in the sun, providing for seasonal seating options;

(d) Screening of the adjacent carpark behind LiquorLand (with planting);

(e) Opportunities for cultural expression (still to be determined); and

(f) Signage.

23. Option 2 is proposed to be delivered within a budget of ~$200k which includes internal staff design and project management time.

Figure 3: Option 2

24. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option, as well as a “do nothing” Option 3:

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
Option 1	· Timber deck surrounding Pohutukawa provides improved connection between Willow Street and the Reserve, drawing people into the space. · Lighting of the tree contributes to the amenity of Willow Street at night and provides an attractive gateway into the city centre. · Better outcomes for universal accessibility and inclusion. · More seating opportunities and options for multiple groups, and places to eat lunch. · Provides an opportunity for the neighbouring business at 17 Harrington Street to open directly on the Reserve, therefore providing additional opportunities for activation and passive surveillance. · The upgrade improves the usability of the Reserve which mitigates against perceptions of a lack of safety.	· Comes at a higher cost. · Upgrade will take slightly longer to complete than Option 1.
Option 2	· Lower cost option	· Provides less opportunities and options for seating and having lunch for multiple groups; · Provides no opportunities for lighting; · Provides less choice of universal access into the Reserve; · Reduces the opportunity for the neighbouring business to access directly into the Reserve.
Option 3 – status quo	· Budget can be reprioritised to other city centre Reserve projects.	· Aspen Reserve remains under-utilised, inaccessible to those with accessibility requirements, and retains the perception that it is unsafe.

25. Option 1 is recommended as it maximises use of the reserve, better responds to the outcomes in the CCAIP and has the most benefits for the community.

Financial Considerations

26. Capital funding is available through the City Centre Green Spaces budget that supports the delivery of a key CCAIP action to: “Develop and deliver a programme of upgrades to existing parks and open spaces considering the needs of both visitors and residents.”

27. Delivering this project at a cost between $200k and $350k would allow remaining budget to be spent on other green spaces projects contributing to a ‘city centre in nature’.

28. As an existing asset, maintenance of the Reserve including existing gardens and trees and lawns are covered by existing opex budgets. It is estimated that the current reserve would cost $3,024 annually including maintenance and depreciation costs.

29. Additional furniture, timber decking and particularly lighting will increase opex costs. Option 1 is estimated to cost $5,336 in annual opex and Option 2 is likely to cost approximately $3,563.

Legal Implications / Risks

30. There are no legal implications or other risks noted with the recommendation to determine a preferred option for the redevelopment of Aspen Reserve.

31. There may be risks to implementation if archaeological approval is not given.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

32. There are three hapū with an interest in the city centre area. There is an opportunity to investigate how the design can reflect the area’s Māori history building on similar approaches elsewhere in the city centre.

33. Previous engagement with Ngāi Tamarāwaho in 2017 suggested referencing nearby Taumatakahawai and that the area’s historic use as a garden be incorporated into the design, as well as interpretation signage and pou, and dual naming recognising the Māori occupation of this area. More recently at the site meeting with Mana Whenua representatives including Ngāi Tamarāwaho and Ngāi Tukairangi, opportunities for cultural recognition were confirmed as the following:

· Reserve naming

· Pou

· Etched patterns on the concrete footpath

· Mural (one suggestion was painting from a historic photo showing whanau members helping to build Willow Street next to the Reserve); and an

· Interpretation panel.

34. The pou and interpretation panel are included in the cost estimate in both options. The concrete etching is included in the budget for option 1 only. The mural is currently unfunded.

35. Other items suggested by Mana Whenua included a stage, a drinking fountain and removal of the three Nikau trees and replacement with a suitable shade tree. These have not been budgeted for.

CLIMATE IMPACT

36. There is an opportunity to look at incorporating sustainability considerations into the design. For example, previous designs for this area included substantial concrete, which has a significant embedded carbon cost. The designs presented here propose less use of concrete and instead enhance the green space to provide access to nature for city centre residents and visitors.

Consultation / Engagement

37. Engagement on the proposed upgrade with hapū, stakeholders, and neighbouring businesses and property owners was undertaken in March and again in October-November.

38. Mana Whenua and the majority of the businesses were supportive of an upgrade taking place. Adjacent businesses continue to share concerns about perceived safety as the Reserve attracts people lingering and drinking.

39. Staff will reconnect with the adjacent businesses and property owners to share Council’s selected option.

Significance

40. 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.

41. 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; and

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

ENGAGEMENT

43. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that appropriate engagement will be undertaken with hapū, the community, and other city centre stakeholders as this project progresses.

Next Steps

44. Following confirmation of the preferred option and project budget, staff will:

(a) Work with Mana Whenua to progress opportunities for cultural expression;

(b) Apply to the public art fund for the mural

(c) Complete detailed design for the selected option and work with City Ops and a contractor to complete construction and planting before the end of the financial year;

(d) Keep the adjacent businesses informed as the project progresses.

(e) Construction is likely to take no more than two months

Attachments

1. Aspen Reserve problem definition and project outcomes - A19444772 ⇩

2. Aspen Reserve Design Options - A19426106 ⇩

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

15 December 2025

9.4 Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Project Update

File Number: A18889368

Author: Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Authoriser: Mike Seabourne, Acting General Manager Operations and Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. Provide an update on small -scale safety and accessibility projects planned in the current financial year.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Project Update ".

Executive Summary

2. This report provides an update on the progress of minor safety and accessibility projects scheduled for design or implementation during the current fiscal year. It also addresses improvements at the intersection of Ngatai Road and Bureta Road. The primary focus is on delivering safer, more accessible routes for residents by prioritising areas identified as high-risk and responding to community needs.

3. The transport programme is structured around four key activity areas: planning, improvement, operations, and maintenance. Together, these activities ensure that the city’s transport network remains safe, efficient, and capable of meeting the evolving needs of a growing population.

4. The improvement programme is responsible for delivering new capital projects across the network. These projects are categorised by scale:

(a) Major projects: Valued at over $2 million, these projects typically require significant design and construction efforts. These require a business case.

(b) Minor improvements: Projects under $2 million, focusing on targeted upgrades that improve safety, accessibility, and efficiency within the network.

5. Project and programme prioritisation follows the framework approved by the Project Planning and Monitoring Committee at its meeting on 25 November 2024. This framework supports the prioritisation of investment, ensures value for money, and enables effective responses to community needs.

6. Among the major projects, the Ngatai/Bureta Road intersection has been identified as the highest risk intersection within the transport network. Planned improvements include the implementation of a roundabout and pedestrian crossings, both designed to enhance safety and improve the overall efficiency of the intersection. Coordination with planned rehabilitation work in the area is intended to support efficient project delivery and minimise disruption to the public.

7. Staff visited local businesses to gather early feedback, and the plans were shared with the community in October 2025. Initial responses have been positive, although there may be concerns about loss of parking.

8. The planned small-scale safety and accessibility improvement projects are summarised below:

(a) Girven Road signalised crossing project was initiated due to the high number of crashes involving a pedestrian fatality, two other active mode user crashes and two minor injuries involving vehicles. Due to increased traffic volumes together with high active user demand, the current zebra crossing is no longer appropriate.

(b) Safety improvements on Ohauiti Road will be implemented in response to a high rate of vehicle crashes and community concerns regarding safety. Enhancements include a new pedestrian refuge to facilitate access to local shops, installation of an electronic speed warning sign, additional line marking, kerb extensions at strategic locations, and updated signage to assist in managing speeds.

(c) The zebra crossing for Mount Maunganui Primary School on Tay Street near Muricata Avenue is in response to lack of a safe crossing with high student demand. The project was supported by a student petition with over 250 signatures.

(d) Ashley Place in Papamoa has grown rapidly, with various retail and commercial businesses, including an early childhood education centre that increases pedestrian use, with insufficient footpaths to meet demand. People parking on the berm decreases access in the area. There has been strong advocacy from local businesses to address the issue.

(e) Chapel Street Esplanade: A shared path will link Chapel Street to Takitimu Drive. Progress is slow as the Mobil service station needs to relocate infrastructure prior to project implementation. The project is currently in its initial design phase, and future progress will depend on Mobil's ability to complete their work, which may require carrying the project forward into FY27. Cultural integration within the design is an important consideration in this project with engagement with hapu to commence early in the new year.

(f) The planned signalised crossing in the vicinity of 189 Ngatai Road has been revised to a zebra crossing due to updated demand assessment. This reduces costs from $516K to $230K. The new design includes a zebra crossing with a central refuge, improved lighting, relocated bus stops and enhanced footpaths. Biggles Montessori and the local community have long advocated for this improvement.

9. The reactive works and operational improvements programme support small-scale changes to the network (between $250 to $25K), such as new signage or markings, parking modifications, the provision of mobility parking spaces, and minor geometric changes such as cycle ramps.

10. These changes are largely initiated in response to community requests and contribute to routine operational and safety improvements. In the previous financial year, $103K was allocated for 92 projects across the network. All design work has been brought in-house reducing costs and improving turnaround significantly.

Background

11. Transport plays a key role in how people move around Tauranga. Whether it’s planning new projects or maintaining existing infrastructure, our goal is to support safe and efficient travel – no matter how people choose to get around.

12. Road safety is of concern for many in our community. Each year, the Engineering Services team receives around 1000 customer service requests. About 30% of these relate to safety issues, such as speeding issues or lack of pedestrian crossing facilities.

13. We respond in two ways:

(a) by investigating concerns raised by the community or Councillors through analysis, demand assessments, accessibility and up-to-date crash data.

(b) Utilising information from a road safety network assessment undertaken every three years.

14. These help us understand where improvements are needed most and help guide priorities from a safety or accessibility perspective.

15. To assess safety performance of the transport network, the national KiwiRAP model is used. This identifies Tauranga’s top 50 high-risk roads, intersections and active user locations. It uses two key measures:

(a) Collective Risk – is a measure of the total number or estimated fatal and serious injury crashes per kilometre over a section of road.

(b) Personal Risk - is a measure of the danger to everyone using the network – measure of exposure.

16. This macro-level data supports both major transport infrastructure projects and smaller initiatives. It helps prioritise and implement improvements, in addition to targeted investigations and assessments.

17. Projects with higher safety risks or of high community or access demand, may be prioritised ahead of previously scheduled work. As a result, some lower-priority projects are temporarily put on hold to allow resources to be directed where they will deliver the greatest benefit for the community.

Statutory Context

18. The provision of safe and accessible routes to schools, shops, and public transport in New Zealand is guided by several key frameworks including:

(a) Land Transport Act 1998: Establishes the legal basis for transport safety and infrastructure planning.

(b) Safer Journeys for Schools Guidelines: Promotes a Safe System approach to improve safety around schools.

(c) NZTA’s Pedestrian Network Guidance: Promotes a Safe System approach and inclusive design, encouraging Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) to consider the needs of all users, particularly vulnerable road users, when planning and implementing pedestrian facilities (paths and crossings).

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

19. 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

20. Providing safe and accessible routes aligns with Council’s vision of developing a well-planned city that supports movement and offers a range of sustainable transport choices, which also supports carbon emission reduction.

21. Accessible routes with safe crossing facilities enable local communities to navigate the city safely and inclusively, whether travelling to work, school, shops or public transport, while accommodating people of all ages and abilities.

Options Analysis

22. This year’s annual plan includes a set of projects currently in design or delivery. Each project has a defined purpose. Any potential changes are outlined below to ensure clarity and context.

Ngatai Road and Bureta Road Intersection

23. This intersection is currently ranked as Tauranga’s highest risk under the KiwiRAP road safety assessment. It presents high collective and personal risk, with medium to high risk for people walking and cycling. The zebra crossing on Ngatai Road is heavily used for access to the beach and Bureta shops, but the layout is no longer fit for purpose.

24. Signalisation was originally proposed as part of the Accessible Streets for Ōtūmoetai (Area B) project, which included cycle lanes, bus priority, and pedestrian upgrades. However, NZTA funding was not secured in 2024 due to a change in government priorities.

25. Initial modelling assumed wider network upgrades, which are no longer progressing. Updated modelling assessed a mountable mini roundabout, which better suits the site’s geometry and tidal traffic flow. Compared to signals, the roundabout improves traffic flow, reduces queuing, and includes upgrading the existing high-demand zebra crossing to a signalised pedestrian crossing.

26. The revised design maintains safe access to nearby shops and the beach while improving overall network performance. Previous consultation through the Ōtūmoetai Spatial Plan and Accessible Streets programme showed strong support for changes at this location. The updated proposal has been shared with directly affected businesses. Figure 1 below shows the updated layout.

Figure 1 Proposed layout of the Ngatai/Bureta Road Roundabout

27. Council approved separate funding through the annual plan. NZTA has committed up to $1 million in co-funding via the Targeted Fund. Pavement failure at the site requires rehabilitation and resealing parts of Ngatai Road, creating an opportunity to coordinate works and minimise disruption.

28. The draft annual plan provides for the safety upgrade of the Bureta Road railway crossing. Presently, Maxwells Road railway crossing is prioritised ahead of Bureta Road; however, staff are investigating the possibility of reversing this order, contingent upon available funding, to minimise overall disruption.

Girven Road Pedestrian Crossing Upgrade

29. Girven Road carries around 16,500 vehicles daily, with approximately 40 people using the crossing over a two-hour period — many are students accessing nearby schools. The zebra crossing near 62 Girven Road is no longer safe or efficient due to high traffic volumes and active mode use.

30. Between 2019 and 2023, five crashes occurred at this location. Two involved pedestrians—one fatal, one serious. Another involved a cyclist, and two others caused minor injuries. The crossing is considered high risk and has been prioritised for delivery this financial year.

Ohauiti Road safety and accessibility improvements

31. Since 2019, there have been 20 reported crashes along the Ohauiti Road corridor. In response, a public meeting was held to discuss community concerns, particularly around speeding and the lack of safe pedestrian crossing facilities.

32. As part of early safety interventions, a pedestrian refuge island was installed near No.264 Ohauiti Road. The remaining projects include:

(a) A new pedestrian refuge near the dairy in the vicinity of 150 Ohauiti Road.

(b) Electronic speed advisory sign between Mariri Drive and Summerhaven Place.

(d) Further delineation and marking or kerb build outs between Poike Road and McFetridge Lane.

33. The safety upgrade project is currently in the initiation phase, with implementation scheduled for FY27.

Safer school journeys - Mount Maunganui Primary School

34. A student from Mount Maunganui Primary School submitted a petition with 257 signatures raising safety concerns about crossing Tay Street near Muricata Avenue.

35. In response, a project is now in early design. A zebra crossing is proposed, along with shared path extensions to support safer walking and cycling to and from school — connecting the crossing to Lee Street and Orkney Street.

Ashley Place Footpath

36. Ashley Place in Papamoa has grown rapidly, with a mix of retail and commercial developments now operating in the area. This includes an early childhood education centre, which increases foot traffic and the need for safe pedestrian access.

37. Currently, there are missing footpath links between Te Okuroa Drive and Tiria Drive. These missing sections create safety risks (with many vehicles parking on the berm) and limit accessibility for people walking or biking.

38. This project is now underway to address these gaps. The design will complete the footpath connections to support active transport and improve access to local services.

Chapel Street Esplanade

39. The project will deliver a shared path behind the Mobil service station site, linking Chapel Street to Takitimu Drive – a well-used route for both recreation and commuting.

40. Progress has taken time. Mobil needs to relocate some infrastructure before Council can move ahead with the project. There’s also work required to strengthen the seawall and cultural elements that need to be carefully considered as part of the design.

Ngatai Road early childhood centre

41. As part of the Accessible Streets for Ōtūmoetai project, the proposal was to install a signalised crossing to support access between Biggles Early Childhood Centre and Best Start and to make it easier for bus users to cross Ngatai Road. Since demand for walking and cycling has changed, and the initial project is delayed, installing a zebra crossing is now feasible.

42. Costs have decreased from $516k to $230K (including a 20% contingency), resulting in a difference of $286K. This revised budget will cover the crossing with a central refuge island, lighting, relocation of bus stops and shelters, footpath improvements, and the addition of a splitter island on Short Street.

43. Biggles Montessori has strongly advocated for crossing improvements over several years.

Financial Considerations

44. The current approved annual plan, along with the proposed FY27 annual plan programme and associated costs, is outlined in Table 1 below.

45. The Ngatai Road early learning childhood centre crossing facility is reduced to $230K with a difference of $286K. If this funding is maintained in a bulk fund, it could be allocated to subsequent projects in the pipeline.

46. Project cost estimates are based on similar completed projects and further refined for value during detailed design.

47. Community feedback can affect both the scope and budget of a project. For example, community requests to extend or increase footpaths to an adjacent crossing are evaluated during the design phase and may lead to increased expenditure but overall value for money as we are only constructing once.

48. Conversely, costs may decrease if existing infrastructure is deemed adequate, such as when current street lighting meets required standards and further upgrades or power connections is unnecessary.

49. Wherever possible and appropriate, staff are undertaking concept design and cost estimation resulting in efficiencies and savings.

Legal Implications / Risks

50. The key risk is meeting community expectations around timing of project delivery is challenging, particularly when some initiatives take several years to implement.

51. While funding constraints are a key factor, having a fair and consistent process for evaluating projects helps support clear communication about delivery timeframes and priorities.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

52. Minor projects, such as pedestrian crossings support the principles as outlined in the Te Ao Māori approach, including Manaakitanga, meaning care and safety of our people.

CLIMATE IMPACT

53. These projects support the Climate Investment and Action plan as it supports walking, biking, and micro-mobility transport modes and improves access to public transport.

Consultation / Engagement

54. Once a project’s funded, staff will engage with affected parties and key groups to ensure we get the right input before moving into finalising the design for delivery.

Significance

55. 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.

56. 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.

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

58. However, there is a high interest for local communities and schools who wish to see improvements for their community delivered as soon as possible.

ENGAGEMENT

59. 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.

60. Contingent on the scale and nature of the project, local engagement with directly affected residents or businesses are undertaken together with identified stakeholders to ensure feedback is incorporated to the extent possible.

Next Steps

61. Progress the implementation of identified projects.

Attachments

Nil

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

15 December 2025

9.5 Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status

File Number: A19425527

Author: Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Authoriser: Mike Seabourne, Acting General Manager Operations and Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. This report provides Council with an update on the small-scale safety and accessibility programme. It responds to the City Future Committee’s request for a list of current Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan projects by year, including bundled projects and their details.

2. The report seeks approval for prioritisation matrices and weightings for projects under $2M, and outlines ways to accelerate delivery within current budget limits.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report " Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status".

(b) Approves the prioritisation matrix and the associated weightings for ranking small-scale projects within a bulk fund, noting that this does not prevent the bulk fund from being prioritised within the wider Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan processes.

(i) Safety exposure – 45%

(ii) Active road user demand – 35%

(iii) Community risk – 10%

(iv) Ease of delivery – 10%

(c) Approves use of $536K of the $1,147M savings as a rates/cost neutral alternative (i.e. depreciation generated by replacement projects are same as savings from projects) and notes that for the balance, the reduced borrowing will also lead to savings in budgeted interest costs.

(d) Approves progressing the following rapidly deployable projects totalling $536K, including the previously committed Grenada Street crossing (Council resolution CDC/25/6/1).

(i) James Cook Drive (near Victory St) refuge island

(ii) Enforcement CCTV cameras at multiple high risk school locations

(iii) Mt. Maunganui Primary School Safety Improvements on Orkney Road

(iv) Bethlehem College zebra crossing on Elder Lane at the intersection of Moffat Road.

(e) Supports in principle utilising available capacity within the transport budget within a fiscal year to deliver rapidly deployable projects, contingent upon necessary internal review and Council approval, including any related or associated initiatives. The condition of these principles include:

(i) Operate within the allocated budget, leveraging any underspends to accelerate delivery of agreed projects and enable quicker activation of initiatives important to the community and Council.

(ii) Utilise only funding sources that have no impact on rates or existing funding commitments.

(iii) No additional operational costs are expected from these rapidly deployable projects. This represents a direct swap between savings from loan-funded projects and new loan-funded projects.

(iv) That these funding sources be applied where genuine savings are achieved or where financial headroom exists. This is subject to approval considering the wider fiscal strategy.

Executive Summary

3. To enhance the delivery of community-focused initiatives, the Council’s input is sought regarding possible modifications to current practices. The objective is to increase flexibility and responsiveness within the existing financial framework, while maintaining alignment with agreed priorities. We are seeking to do more with what we have.

4. Staff regularly receives a high number of community requests, often driven by concerns about safety or accessibility. This highlights a need for a more responsive and structured approach to addressing these issues.

5. The transport network continues to evolve. New road safety risks can emerge due to growth, changing traffic patterns and community feedback. Community requests are investigated and where they are assessed as being warranted, a project is initiated and enters a prioritisation pipeline.

6. To support project selection, technical assessments are conducted to establish the necessity for interventions. These are complemented by a data-driven prioritisation matrix, creating a transparent and equitable framework for assessing and ranking proposals. This methodology ensures that resources are directed towards projects offering the greatest benefit to the community.

7. Validated projects are prioritised based on multiple criteria, including safety considerations, demand from vulnerable users, community risk factors, and delivery constraints within current funding limits.

8. Changes to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) funding and policy have created significant challenges, particularly for projects that address community priorities such as accessibility and pedestrian safety.

9. Considering these pressures, we seek Council’s endorsement on adopting a more agile approach to ensure the programme continues to deliver value and respond effectively to community needs.

10. There’s an opportunity to fast-track projects that are shovel-ready or rapidly deployable. Many already have detailed designs completed and only need a final safety audit or minor design work due to their lower complexity.

11. Staff are seeking endorsement in principle to utilise available capacity within the transport budget within a fiscal year to deliver rapidly deployable projects, contingent upon necessary internal review and Council approval, including any related or associated initiatives. The condition of these principles include:

(a) Operate within the allocated budget, leveraging any underspends to accelerate delivery of agreed projects and enable quicker activation of initiatives important to the community and Council.

(b) Utilise only funding sources that have no impact on rates or existing funding commitments.

(c) No additional operational costs are expected from these rapidly deployable projects. This represents a direct swap between savings from loan-funded projects and new loan-funded projects.

(d) That these funding sources be applied where genuine savings are achieved or where financial headroom exists. This is subject to approval considering the wider fiscal strategy.

12. In addition to the above, the following funding options are presented for consideration:

(a) Retain $1.147M savings for future use, in which case the identified projects would be prioritised for delivery in the 2026/27 fiscal year. This results in capital savings as well as $27K consequential Opex in future years.

(b) Bring forward $1.161M from the FY27 draft annual plan total of $6M, with the understanding that an additional operating expense of $34K will be incurred in FY27. The operating cost has been accounted for in the budgets of subsequent years. (This funding could be utilised to include Pyes Pa signalised crossing at a cost of $625K.)

(c) Utilise $536K of the $1.147M savings as a rates/cost neutral alternative (i.e. depreciation generated by replacement projects is the same as savings from projects); however, it should be noted that for the balance, the reduced borrowing will also lead to savings in budgeted interest costs.

13. Alternatively, Council may opt to retain these savings for future use, in which case the identified projects would be prioritised for delivery in the 2026/27 financial year.

Background

14. Transport is essential to how people move around Tauranga. Whether planning new projects or maintaining current infrastructure, the primary goal is to enable safe and efficient travel for everyone, regardless of their chosen mode of transport.

15. Road safety is a concern for many in our community. Each year, the Engineering Services team receives approximately 1,000 customer service requests, with around 30% relating to safety issues such as speeding or inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities.

16. We address these concerns in two main ways:

(a) Investigating issues raised by the community or Councillors through analysis, demand assessments, accessibility reviews, and up-to-date crash data.

(b) Utilising findings from a comprehensive road safety network assessment conducted every three years.

17. These approaches help us identify where improvements are most needed and guide our priorities from both safety and accessibility perspectives.

18. To evaluate the safety performance of the transport network, we use the national KiwiRAP model. This model identifies Tauranga’s top 50 high-risk roads, intersections, and active user locations using two key measures:

(a) Collective Risk: The total number or estimated fatal and serious injury crashes per kilometre over a section of road.

(b) Personal Risk: The level of danger for all users of the network, measured by exposure.

19. This broad data informs both major transport infrastructure projects and smaller initiatives. It helps guide prioritisation, implementation of improvements, and targeted investigations and assessments.

Prioritisation matrices and project pipeline development

20. Requests from schools or the wider community for improved walking and cycling access, or the emergence of new crash risks, are actively investigated. If a safety issue is confirmed and action is needed, it is included in our prioritisation pipeline.

21. We use prioritisation matrices to ensure all community requests are considered fairly and consistently. These matrices help rank projects across the city, so improvements are made where they are most needed. This approach also supports forward planning and funding decisions. The matrices are tailored to these types of projects and are widely used across New Zealand.

22. To maximise opportunities for NZTA partnership funding, we may adjust these prioritisation matrices to align with national requirements.

23. Smaller projects are assessed using criteria such as safety, demand from vulnerable users, community risk, and how easily the project can be delivered. The weighting for these criteria is shown in Table 1 below.

Criteria	Weight	Description
Safety exposure	45%	Assessed using a risk-based approach that draws on historic crash data, near-miss reports, and an understanding of traffic volumes, speed against user demand.
Active Road User Demand	35%	Looks at how many people would benefit from the proposed changes, with a particular focus on those most at risk—such as students, older adults, and people who walk, cycle, or use mobility devices.
Community risk	10%	The likelihood that there will be high or significant community pushback based on delivery of projects of a similar nature. An example is loss of parking.
Ease of delivery	10%	How practical the proposed changes are to implement. This includes construction risks, timeframes, complexity, and the value the changes offer.

Table 1: Assessment criteria and associated weightings

24. Safety exposure is evaluated through both crash data and network safety assessment metrics. Crash data primarily depend on incidents reported by the New Zealand Police, recognising that reporting rates tend to increase with the severity of the crash.

25. Specifically, more severe crashes are more likely to be formally documented, whereas incidents involving minor injuries often go unreported. It is estimated that approximately 30% of crashes are not reported.

26. The safety exposure metric combines crash data with an exposure score based on traffic volume and interactions with other users. Higher risk results in higher priority, as shown in the Table 2 below.

Active Mode User exposure score
Traffic Volume	Low Active User Volume <20	20 to 50	50 to 200	200 to 400	High Cycle /Pedestrian Volume 400 plus
< 2000	1	1	1	2	3
2,000 - 5,000	1	2	3	3	3
5,000 - 10000	1	2	3	4	4
10000 - 30000	2	3	4	4	4
Death or Seriously Injury	5	5	5	5	5

Table 2: Exposure Scoring matrix

27. Project priorities are reviewed annually. Network changes or new issues may shift focus to projects with greater safety risks or higher community demand, delaying lower-priority work so resources are utilised that would provide the most benefit.

28. Other minor community business as usual requests requiring intervention ($250–$20K) are delivered through the annual reactive works programme. These projects deliver interventions such as small geometric changes, mobility parking, road markings, and signs. In 2024, 92 projects were delivered within the allocated budget of $103k. Year to date, $188K is committed from the allocated budget of $300K.

Minor Safety and Accessibility Programme Structure

29. The programme supports the delivery of small-scale capital projects across the transport network. These projects are systematically categorised based on their financial scale and complexity to ensure effective planning, funding, and implementation.

30. Large improvement projects, defined as those with a value exceeding $2 million, generally encompass extensive design and construction phases. When applying for funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), it is essential to submit a formal NZTA business case to support the application and obtain the required resources.

31. Small-scale projects are defined as those with a value of less than $2 million. These initiatives concentrate on specific upgrades designed to improve the safety and accessibility of the network. Projects within this category are further prioritised based on their respective costs:

(a) Projects under $1.5 million: These are prioritised and funded through bulk funding allocations, allowing for greater flexibility. Council approval is sought for specific projects but may be outside to the annual plan cycle.

(b) Projects between $1.5 million and $2 million: These are considered as standalone projects and are subject to assessment and consideration through the annual plan and/or Long-Term Plan (LTP) processes.

Current pipeline status

32. The projects listed in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 focus solely on safety or identified walking and cycling or access related improvements. They do not include public transport, resilience or maintenance-related activities as these are dealt with separately through their own bulk funds or separately identified projects.

33. The current programme pipeline comprises 61 projects with a combined total value of $22.4M, as detailed in Attachment 1 (Rapid Deployable) and Attachment 2 (Project Pipeline). Of these:

34. There are 59 minor safety and accessibility projects (valued at $1.5 million or less), collectively amounting to a total of $18.3M.

35. Two projects with a total value of $4.1M are classified as larger-scale initiatives and are for consideration as standalone projects via the annual plan and/or forthcoming Long-Term Plan (LTP) process, where they will be prioritised accordingly. These specifically include:

(a) Harbour Drive which was presented as an independent initiative at the City Futures Committee meeting on 14 October. Although currently classified under the Minor Safety and Accessibility project pipeline, its scope and significance justify evaluation as a distinct project for Council consideration. The total value of the project is estimated at $2.3M.

(b) This assessment should be undertaken during the forthcoming Annual Plan and/or Long-Term Plan processes, in accordance with the resolution adopted at that meeting.

(c) The Concord and Oceanbeach Road mini roundabout and pedestrian crossing improvements. Like Harbour Drive the estimated cost is $1,850,000. This intersection is a high-risk intersection (top 13 high risk intersection) and hence is prioritised for consideration for future annual plan and/or LTP processes.

36. Project cost estimates are primarily informed by comparable work that has already been designed and delivered. These estimates are refined throughout the concept and detailed design phases.

37. Community feedback may influence both the scope and cost of a project. For instance, a request to extend a shared path to a nearby crossing would be considered during design development and may result in increased costs. Equally, project costs may reduce, for example, street lighting is sufficient, and hence additional lighting is not required.

38. Most recently, many projects are investigated, and a concept design and cost estimate are undertaken using internal capability, providing strong value engineering opportunities where we are seeing good wins.

Statutory Context

39. The provision of safe and accessible routes to schools, shops, and public transport in New Zealand is guided by several key frameworks including:

(a) Land Transport Act 1998: Establishes the legal basis for transport safety and infrastructure planning.

(b) Safer Journeys for Schools Guidelines: Promotes a Safe System approach to improve safety around schools.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

41. 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

42. Providing safe and accessible routes aligns with Council’s vision of developing a well-planned city that supports movement and offers a range of sustainable transport choices, which also supports carbon emission reduction.

43. Accessible routes with safe crossing facilities enable local communities to navigate the city safely and inclusively, whether travelling to work, school, shops or public transport, while accommodating people of all ages and abilities.

Options Analysis

Current State

44. The programme continues to experience growth, with new projects emerging primarily in response to community requests and changes within the transport network.

45. At present, the prioritised projects are delivered through the funding envelope through the Annual Plan processes for decision-making.

46. While this structured approach provides consistency and accountability, it can reduce agility when responding to emerging needs or high-interest community priorities. Opportunities to address these priorities or adapt to changing circumstances may be delayed, which can impact overall responsiveness.

Future Opportunity

47. We have been exploring ways to enhance the delivery of community-focused projects and seek Council’s views on potential changes to our approach. The aim is to improve flexibility and responsiveness within existing financial constraints while maintaining alignment with agreed priorities and maximising in-house staff capability and any capacity that may emerge through programme delays or changes.

48. We propose a structured method to accelerate priority projects by applying verified savings, approved by the finance team, within the same financial year. This would allow selected initiatives to advance by up to 12 months, provided they align with existing long-term and annual plans and meet all required checks.

49. Council would review and endorse these projects, and include safeguards that include stakeholder sign-off, documentation, and compliance with NZTA funding standards and complying with Councils business case process.

Proposed Programme Approach Principles:

50. Operate within the allocated budget, leveraging any underspends to accelerate delivery of agreed projects and enable quicker activation of initiatives important to the community and Council, using the following parameters.

(a) Utilise only funding sources that have no impact on rates or existing funding commitments

(b) Use these funding sources only where actual savings are achieved or where there is financial headroom, pending approval. Note that funds coming in and out of the financial year depend on the broader council impact.

(c) Enables Council to approve minor projects within the existing fiscal envelope without waiting for a full annual plan cycle.

(d) Maximise value and efficiency by optimising existing resources and budgets, ensuring every dollar delivers the greatest possible benefit.

(e) Progress projects that are identified as being rapidly deployable. This means projects are progressed to the stage and the project itself can be delivered within the financial year with a good portion of the cost of delivery already invested/sunk and the projects are of high community interest.

Rapidly deployable projects

51. To maintain delivery momentum, and if funding allows, we aim to prioritise completing advanced design work on around six high benefit projects each year, with construction starting in the following year. This approach keeps the pipeline moving and ensures we’re ready to deliver when funding and approvals align.

52. Targeted funds may become available when NZTA has surplus funds. Having a flexible, shovel-ready pipeline means we can act quickly and secure these opportunities. This approach has worked in the past and positions us to maximise funding without delay.

53. Attempting to design and deliver all projects simultaneously increases costs and places pressure on the market resource and capacity. By staggering design and delivery, we support a steady and manageable flow of work through the supply chain.

54. An example of a project suitable for early design work is the Vale Street or Grange/Milton Road zebra crossing. Delivering the project within the next six months would be challenging due to the current design status and required community engagement. However, progressing the design now could enable delivery in the latter part of next year.

55. Several previously designed projects are currently paused, until the next annual plan approval, but identified as suitable for rapid deployment (for implementation by July 2026) if funding becomes available but are also subject to other projects with higher potential priority. These are outlined in Attachment 1 and Table 4 below.

56. The projects were advanced to their current stage using funding from the previous National Land Transport Fund and were 51% NZTA funded. Rapidly means they have benefit to the community, and consider:

(a) Deliverability is assessed by evaluating both the practicality of implementing the proposed changes and the complexity and risk involved. This includes whether detailed design is already complete or can be completed quickly, and whether the project is low in complexity.

(b) Projects that have already been consulted on, or that carry a low risk of community impact, are also considered more deliverable.

57. While some projects may be ready to progress, they are also subject to annual reprioritisation — particularly if more urgent or higher-priority needs are identified. This approach ensures we stay responsive to changing community demands or safety risks that may emerge

Financial Considerations

58. Recent changes to the Government Policy Statement (GPS) have significantly reduced funding for projects that are highly valued by the community, such as accessibility improvements and pedestrian crossings. In addition, NZTA funding support is unlikely in the short term, which further limits delivery options.

59. The current draft future annual plan proposed budgets are outlined in Table 3 below

Table 3: Draft annual plan

60. The programme view is that Transport is working within our allocated budget and actively looking for ways to make the most of it. A total of $1.35M has been saved through value engineering.

61. NZTA subsidy and IFF funding have been excluded from any saving calculation because they don’t affect debt levels. Savings have been identified for projects that are debt-funded, delivering net savings of $1.35M. as outlined in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Savings achieved for Transport project in FY26

62. To allow for potential cost variations, a 15% contingency buffer is applied. This results in an estimated debt funding requirement of $1.15M

63. Annual future operating costs for all projects are 3% of project value, with smaller projects costing more than the Arataki Bus Facility. If savings are maximized, net additional operating cost will be $34K per year from FY27 onward, affecting rates.

64. Options for consideration include:

(b) Bring forward $1.161M from the FY27 draft annual plan total of $6M, with the understanding that an additional operating expense of $34K will be incurred in FY27. The operating cost has been accounted for in the budgets of subsequent years. (This funding will be utilised to include Pyes Pa signalised crossing at a cost of $625K.)

65. To achieve a cost neutral position, $536K of the total savings could be utilised to implement the proposed list of projects in Table 5 below, noting that approval has already been granted by Council resolution for the Grenada Street project to proceed.

Table 5: Proposed list of rapidly deployable projects for delivery by July 2026.

66. This proposed approach ensures:

(a) Efficient use of confirmed savings, enabling delivery of projects that matter to the community.

(b) Alignment with Council’s financial strategy, by operating within existing debt-funded parameters.

Legal Implications / Risks

67. The key risks are:

(a) Projects are initiated and assessed to confirm feasibility. While some would be approved for delivery through annual plan processes, public consultation may not yet have taken place. Balancing safety outcomes with parking availability during consultation can be challenging. These discussions may lead to delays and in some cases, projects are placed on hold. Early engagement is critical to minimise these risks.

(b) Meeting community expectations around project delivery can be challenging, particularly when some initiatives take several years to implement. While funding constraints are a key factor, having a fair and consistent process for evaluating projects helps support clear communication about delivery timeframes and priorities.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

68. Minor projects, such as pedestrian crossings support the principles as outlined in the Te Ao Māori approach, including Manaakitanga, meaning of care and safety of our people.

CLIMATE IMPACT

69. These projects support the Climate Investment and Action plan as it supports walking, biking, and micro-mobility transport modes and improves access to public transport.

Consultation / Engagement

70. Once a project’s funded, staff will engage with affected parties and key groups to ensure we get the right input before moving into finalising the design for delivery.

Significance

71. 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.

72. 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 .

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

74. However, there is a high interest for local communities and schools who wish to see improvements for their community be delivered as soon as possible.

ENGAGEMENT

75. 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.

76. This report provides an update and outlines the backlog of projects relating to small scale safety and accessibility improvements. Should project progress, engagement with residents and key stakeholders will be undertaken.

Next Steps

77. Contingent on Council’s decision, progress projects to implementation in FY 26, or

78. Projects to be considered as part of the FY27 annual plan process.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 Project backlog of rapidly deployable projects - A19433677 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 Project backlog for future annual plan or LTP consideration - A19433676 ⇩

[1] Stellar pathway: Council & Committees → City Delivery Committee → 2025 → Actions from City Delivery Committee meetings.


AGENDA City Delivery Committee meeting Monday, 15 December 2025
I hereby give notice that a City Delivery Committee meeting will be held on:
Date:	Monday, 15 December 2025
Time:	1:30 pm
Location:	Tauranga City Council Chambers 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

Status of actions	No. actions
Closed (completed since the last report)	11
Pending (waiting on something)	15
In progress	5
To be actioned	-
Total actions included in this report	31