Agenda of Ordinary Council meeting - Tuesday, 10 February 2026

Ordinary Council meeting minutes

16 December 2025

A logo of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

DRAFT MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Tuesday, 16 December 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 4

2 Apologies. 4

3 Public forum.. 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 5

6 Change to the order of business. 5

7 Confirmation of minutes. 5

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 29 October 2025. 5

7.2 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 November 2025. 5

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions. 5

10 Recommendations from other committees. 5

11 Business. 5

11.1 Update to Funding and Financing for Te Manawataki o Te Papa. 6

11.2 Annual Plan - Options for Rates Increases. 6

11.3 Local Water Done Well - Project Update and Recruitment 8

11.4 Mount College 50m Pool Due Diligence. 9

11.5 Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Steering Group and Project Timeline. 10

11.6 Final Speedway Arrangements. 10

11.7 Risk Appetite Report - December 2025. 11

11.8 Organisational Reset - Update of Delegations. 11

11.9 Regulatory Hearings Panel term and appointment process. 12

11.11 Status update on actions from prior Council meetings. 12

11.12 Report for the adoption of draft Trade Waste Bylaw for consultation. 13

11.13 Report for the adoption of draft Stormwater Bylaw for consultation. 13

12 Public excluded session. 13

13.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 November 2025. 14

13.2 Waikite Road - proposed residential development 14

13.3 Local Water Done Well - Digital Programme. 14

13.4 Appointment of Independent Chair to Audit & Risk Committee. 15

13.5 City & Regional Deal Terms Endorsement in Principle. 15

13.7 Asset Recycling Update. 15

Confidential Attachment 1 11.6 - Final Speedway Arrangements. 15

Confidential Attachment 2 11.11 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings... 15

Public Business continued

11.6 Final Speedway Arrangements resumed. 16

13.6 Chief Executive's Performance 2024/25 and 2025/26. 16

13 Closing karakia. 17

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council Chambers, L1,

90 Devonport Road, Tauranga

ON Tuesday, 16 December 2025 AT 8:34 am

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, 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
IN ATTENDANCE:	Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory & Community), Reneke van Soest (General Manager Operations & Infrastructure), Kathryn Sharplin (Acting COFO – Finance & Digital), Alastair McNeill (Acting COFO, Commercial ), Tracey Hughes (Head of Finance), Susan Braid (Finance Lead Capital Programme & Community Investment), Sheree Covell (Manager: Treasury & Financial Processes), Alison Law (Head of Spaces & Places), Ross Hudson (Manager: Strategic Planning & Partnerships) Jaimee Kinzett (Senior Strategic Advisor), Jeremy Boase (Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience), Charles Lane (Team Leader: Commercial Legal), Tyler Buckley (Commercial Solicitor), Libby Dobbs (Head of Communications & Engagement), Cashy Ball (Principal Advisor to the Executive), Chris Quest, (Manager: Risk & Assurance), Radleigh Cairns (Manager: Drainage Services) Sarah Holmes (Team Leader Governance & CCO Support Services), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor)
EXTERNAL:

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 16 December 2025 on the Council's YouTube channel Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

1 Opening karakia

Cr Hēmi Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Apology

Resolution CO/25/0/1

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the apology for lateness 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 the order of business

Nil

7 Confirmation of minutes

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 29 October 2025

Resolution CO/25/0/2

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 29 October 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

7.2 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 November 2025

Resolution CO/25/0/3

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 November 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record subject to the reasons for the decision on item 11.4 that the definition of affordable is subjective.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees

Nil

11 Business

Timestamp: 11 minutes (Part 1)

11.1 Update to Funding and Financing for Te Manawataki o Te Papa

Staff Kathryn Sharplin, Acting COFO, Finance & Digital

Susan Braid, Finance Lead Capital Programme & Community Investment

Tracey Hughes, Head of Finance

The Council considered this item and then returned to it later in the meeting.

Resolution CO/25/0/4

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Update to Funding and Financing for Te Manawataki o Te Papa".

(b) With respect to Te Manawataki o Te Papa funding arrangements for the 2026/27 Annual Plan and noting the rates implications of these funding choices:

(i) Confirms that the priority use of asset realisation net proceeds is to offset new debt, and what would otherwise be rates-funded interest, associated with Te Manawataki o Te Papa, noting that the proposed asset realisation for 2026/27 is not yet included in the December draft annual plan and if included would reduce rates requirement by $0.5m.

(d) Agrees that proposals to actively seek philanthropic funding support should be prepared for Council consideration in early 2026.

(e) Notes that contingency budgets of $30.1m remain across the Te Manawataki o Te Papa programme from 2025/26 to 2029/30 some of which may be released in later years (Attachment 1).

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy MayorJen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Hēmi Rolleston and Cr Steve Morris

Against: Cr Marten Rozeboom and Cr Kevin Schuler

Carried8/2

Timestamp: 26 minutes (Part 1)

11.2 Annual Plan - Options for Rates Increases

Staff Kathryn Sharplin, Acting COFO, Finance & Digital

Tracey Hughes, Head of Finance

Sheree Covell, Manager: Treasury and Financial Processes

Actions requested:

That staff:

· Provide a one-page document noting the systems Council uses for its Asset Registers, revaluations, depreciation and planning and options to adequately resource the systems needed

· Provide an scenario in February 2026 for Council not to increase employee costs by 8% and include what makes up the increase of $8 million

· Provide elected members with a high level summary of potential savings by 20 January 2026.

Resolution CO/25/0/5

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Annual Plan - Options for Rates Increases".

(b) Notes that without further decisions of Council the rates increase currently sits at 13% after growth of 0.5%, with 1% of rates increase equivalent to $3.68 million

(i) Retain the surplus in the waters activities and the higher charges proposed in the Water Services Delivery Plan, but separate water by meter revenue, which is a volumetric charge, from the rates increase calculations, noting that this is consistent with the direction for the proposed future rates caps and noting this avoids raising concerns with the Department of Internal Affairs and the Local Government Funding Agency. This would lower the rates increase by 1.4%

(d) Agrees to consider further options for rates reduction at the Council meeting on 10 February 2026 to achieve a rates requirement of 7.5% taking into account:

(i) Prioritisation of reducing the capital programme

(ii) Executive proposals for reductions in operating costs

(iii) User fee increases and amendments that reduce reliance on rates to be confirmed by Council.

(e) Agrees to consider more significant level of service reductions or acceptance of more risk that would be required to reduce the rates increase to approximately 4% for the year at its meeting on 10^th February 2026.

(f) Notes that funding for the Māori Ward referendum was not included in the Long Term Plan and if Council wishes to budget for a referendum the expenditure would require a decision of Council, which is likely to have an impact on rates of 0.2%.

Carried

At 10.50am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.10am the meeting resumed in open.

Timestamp: 1 minute (Part 2)

11.3 Local Water Done Well - Project Update and Recruitment

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager, Strategy, Partnerships & Growth

Resolution CO/25/0/6

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Project Update and Recruitment".

Recruitment

(b) Agrees to the appointment of a Water Organisation Establishment Chief Executive Officer, with recruitment to commence now so that a recommendation can be made subject to Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council’s final decision to proceed with the Water Organisation on 2nd April 2026 (with a likely start date circa 1 July 2026)

Project Governance

· Kylie Smallman

· Hakopa Tapiata

· Shadrach Rolleston

· Rohario Murray

· Kiritapu Allan

· Roana Bennett

(d) Approves the variation to the Commitment Agreement to reflect the establishment of the Joint Working Group and delegates authority to the General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth to execute the Variation Agreement (see Attachment 1).

(e) Approves the Terms of Reference for the Joint Working Group (Attachment 2), noting that these have been endorsed at the Joint Governance Meeting of 8 December 2025.

(f) Endorses the Commercial Terms Sheet (Attachment 3)

(g) That the Council delegates the Chief Executive to make changes to the Terms of Reference, Commitment Agreement and Commercial Terms to reflect Council's agreed direction.

Carried

Timestamp: 46 minutes (Part 2)

11.4 Mount College 50m Pool Due Diligence

Staff Alison Law, Head of Spaces & Places

Cashy Ball, Principal Advisor to the Executive

Resolution CO/25/0/7

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

The motion was taken in parts

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Mount College 50m Pool Due Diligence".

(b) Considers the outcome of the due diligence work undertaken to date.

(e) Agrees to prioritise the school carpark expansion, at a capital cost of $296,982 +GST as a Council funded enabling project, by reprioritising existing budgets through the Annual Plan 2026/27. Noting that depreciation and maintenance costs of this carpark expansion would not be the responsibility of Council.

CARRIED

(c) Confirms support for the Mount Maunganui College 50m training pool expansion proposal, following due diligence, including ongoing Council support to subsidise the community use of the pool, with:

(i) a $4.945m +GST 10-year loan-funded operational grant for the pool construction, paid to the Mount Maunganui Aquatic Centre Trust. Currently budgeted to be phased over 2025/26 ($2.59m) and 2026/27 ($2.355m), although actual payment of grant will be dependent on project delivery and linked to key project milestones, and

(ii) up to $340,000 +GST annual operational grant, inflated annually, based on actual net operational costs, on an ongoing basis to meet the extra cost of providing a 50m community pool. Starting with a 50% payment (up to $170,000 +GST) in 2026/27 to reflect the first half year of operation and 100% (up to $340,000 +GST) from 2027/28. Noting that the operational grant will not fully fund depreciation.

Subject to the satisfactory resolution of:

• New lease agreed between the Mount Maunganui College Board of Trustees (with Ministry of Education consent) and the Mount Maunganui Aquatic Centre Trust that, at a minimum, includes the new pool footprint and provides an initial term of 14 years and 364 days plus two 10-year rights of renewal (total potential tenure of up to 35 years).

• Full capital funding for construction secured.

• Quantity Survey peer review - due by 23 December 2025; and

(d) Delegates authority to the Chief Executive to approve and execute the Funding Agreement and Operating and Community Use Agreement on behalf of council, consistent with the terms outlined in this report, including approving minor amendments within delegated authority.

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Cr Marten Rozeboom & Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther & Cr Kevin Schuler

Carried 7/3

11.5 Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Steering Group and Project Timeline

Staff Alison Law, Head of Spaces & Places

Cashy Ball, Principal Advisor to the Executive

External Sam Toulin, Apollo Projects

Action requested

· That staff include a list of working groups,steering groups and their membership including naming the elected members, on the website.

Resolution CO/25/0/8

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Steering Group and Project Timeline".

(b) Endorses the attached Terms of Reference for the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre, including the membership and reporting structure outlined in the Terms of Reference;

(c) Supports in principle the key stages and process proposed through this report for the delivery of the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre project.

(d) Notes the two timelines presented through this report propose construction periods for the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre between December 2026 to March 2029 or September 2027 to December 2029, and both would require changes to Council’s current capital programme through the Annual Plan 2026/27 and Long Term Plan 2027-37.

Carried

At 12.46pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.22pm the meeting resumed in open.

Timestamp: 2 hours and 12 minutes (Part 2)

11.6 Final Speedway Arrangements

Staff Alison Law, Head of Spaces & Places

Ross Hudson, Manager: Strategic Planning & Partnerships

Jaimee Kinzett, Senior Strategic Advisor

External Chad Hooker, Chief Executive, Bay Venues Ltd

The Council considered this item and returned to it later in the meeting.

Timestamp: 2 hours and 33 minutes (Part 2)

11.7 Risk Appetite Report - December 2025

Staff Alastair McNeill, Acting COFO, Commercial,

Chris Quest, Manager Risk & Assurance

Resolution CO/25/0/9

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Risk Appetite Report - December 2025".

(b) Notes that the risk appetite for the environmental risk consequence category has been changed from moderate to low (Audit & Risk Committee resolution AR/25/4/3).

Carried

Timestamp: 2 hours and 40 minutes (Part 2)

11.8 Organisational Reset - Update of Delegations

Staff Alastair McNeill, Acting COFO, Commercial

Tyler Buckley, Commercial Solicitor

Action requested:

· That staff provide elected members with a full copy of the delegations manual including the delegated financial authorities.

Resolution CO/25/0/10

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Organisational Reset - Update of Delegations" position titles and reporting lines.

(b) Approves the updates to the Delegations Manual as shown in tracked changes in Attachment 1. The recommended additions are underlined, and the recommended deletions are shown as a ~~strike~~

(d) Note that in the first quarter of 2026, Council staff within Tauranga City Council’s finance team will provide Elected Members with an overview of existing staff financial delegations, and a copy of the full delegations manual, and the delegated financial authorities to enable the Elected Members to decide whether they require an additional Council report on the scope and nature of staff financial delegations.

Carried

Timestamp: 2 hours and 47 minutes (Part 2)

11.9 Regulatory Hearings Panel term and appointment process

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

Sarah Holmes, Team Leader, Governance & CCO Support Services

Resolution CO/25/0/11

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Regulatory Hearings Panel term and appointment process".

(b) Extends the contract term of all four current Regulatory Hearings Panel members and chairperson to 3 April 2026 with a view to further extensions with rolling expiry dates at the 3^rd of April Council meeting.

(c) Appoints one new member to the Regulatory Hearings Panel by late March 2026, for the period of 6 April 2026 to the end of this Council’s term in October 2028.

(d) At the 3 April 2026 Council meeting, considers amending the terms of reference for the Regulatory Hearings Panel to allow for five members, four of which would be invitees for any particular hearing, with members stepping aside on a rotational basis.

Carried

Note: Following the adoption of the meeting schedule for 2026, resolutions (b) and (d) should be changed at the adoption of the minutes on 10 February to 24 March as there is no Council meeting on 3 April.

Timestamp: 2 hours and 52 minutes (Part 2)

11.11 Status update on actions from prior Council meetings

Action Requested:

· That staff highlight current updates for pending/longer term actions in red font (adding the update date) for future reports.

Resolution CO/25/0/12

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Status update on actions from prior Council meetings".

(b) Attachment 2 is to remain in the public excluded section to maintain the commercial position of the Bay of Plenty Housing Equity Fund (as per s7(2)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).

Carried

11.12 Report for the adoption of draft Trade Waste Bylaw for consultation

This item was withdrawn.

Timestamp: 2 hours and 55 minutes (Part 2)

11.13 Report for the adoption of draft Stormwater Bylaw for consultation

Staff Reneke van Soest, General Manager Operations & Infrastructure

Radleigh Cairns, Manager, Drainage Services

Resolution CO/25/0/13

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Report for the adoption of draft Stormwater Bylaw for consultation".

(b) Notes the Bylaw Review Plan for Stormwater Bylaw (Attachment One) developed to meet the requirements of section 263(4)(d) of the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025.

(c) Approves the proposed draft Stormwater Bylaw (Attachment Two) and the Statement of Proposal (Attachment Three) for community consultation.

(d) Delegates to the General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the draft Stormwater Bylaw 2026 or Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits prior to consultation.

Carried

12 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public

Resolution CO/25/0/14

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting at 2.09pm.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows and allow Sean Haynes from VEROS to speak to item 13.2 and Kevin Lavery from IAWAI to be present for the consideration of item 13.3:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
13.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 November 2025	s6(b) - The making available of the information would be likely to endanger the safety of any person s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(d) - The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.2 - Waikite Road - proposed residential development	s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.3 - Local Water Done Well - Digital Programme	s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.4 - Appointment of Independent Chair to Audit & Risk Committee	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.5 - City & Regional Deal Terms Endorsement in Principle	s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.7 - Asset Recycling Update	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
Confidential Attachment 1 - 11.6 - Final Speedway Arrangements	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
Confidential Attachment 2 - 11.11 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings	s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

At 2.09pm the meeting adjourned.

At 6.28pm the meeting resumed in open.

At 6.28pm the meeting adjourned.

At 6.41pm the meeting resumed in open.

Timestamp: 1 minute (Part 3)

11.6 Final Speedway Arrangements resumed

Staff Alison Law, Head of Spaces & Places

Ross Hudson, Manager: Strategic Planning & Partnerships

Jaimee Kinzett, Senior Strategic Advisor

Charles Lane, General Counsel

Resolution CO/25/0/15

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Final Speedway Arrangements".

(b) Receives the final draft agreements prior to execution between Speedway Racing Limited and Bay Venues Limited

The attachments – final draft commercial agreements – are to remain in the public excluded section to enable Council or its subsidiaries to conduct commercial negotiations. They can be transferred into the open once signed by the respective parties.

Carried

Resolution to exclude the public

Resolution CO/25/0/16

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting at 6.51pm.

13.6 - Chief Executive's Performance 2024/25 and 2025/26

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

At 7.36pm the meeting resumed in open.

13 Closing karakia

Cr Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 7.38pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 10 February 2026

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

10 February 2026

11 Business

11.1 Local Water Done Well - Options for Stormwater

File Number: A19186232

Author: Wally Potts, Head of City Waters

Cathy Davidson, Manager: Directorate Services

Charles Lane, Team Leader: Commercial Legal

Fiona Nalder, Principal Strategic Advisor

Frazer Smith, Manager: Strategic Finance & Growth

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To present further work to Council on aspects of stormwater management including assets, ownership, charging and to seek a Council decision regarding the future approach for responsibility and delivery of stormwater and the ownership of stormwater assets.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Options for Stormwater".

(b) Approves maintaining an integrated approach for the responsibility and delivery of stormwater, water supply and wastewater, i.e. a single organisation will both hold responsibility and provide service delivery for all three water functions.

(c) Notes that if, following consideration of due diligence matters, Council continues to establish a multi-council Water Organisation with Western Bay of Plenty District Council, this will result in the responsibility for, and delivery of, stormwater services transferring to the Water Organisation along with water supply and wastewater.

(d) Approves that Council’s general approach will be for Tauranga City Council to retain ownership of land used for stormwater purposes, regardless of whether this land is subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and regardless of whether a Water Organisation is established.

(e) Notes that if a Water Organisation is established, exceptions to retention of land ownership can be considered by Council on a case-by-case basis.

(f) Approves that Council’s general approach is that the Water Service Provider for stormwater shall own stormwater ‘hard’ infrastructure assets, such as all pipes, pumps, dams, inlets and outlets etc.

(g) Notes that Council may choose to influence stormwater charging by a Water Organisation via foundation documents (the Constitution and Shareholders Agreement).

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council (TCC) and Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) are jointly progressing planning and due diligence for a proposed multi‑council Water Organisation (WO) under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025.

3. Both councils’ Water Services Delivery Plans (WSDPs), which have been approved by the Department of Internal Affairs, assume a fully integrated ‘one water’ model: the delivery and responsibility for stormwater, water supply, and wastewater all sit with the one organisation.

4. This report presents the further analysis directed by Council resolution regarding stormwater management, asset ownership, charging, and the implications of retaining versus transferring responsibility. The report recommends maintaining an integrated approach and transferring stormwater responsibility to the WO if the WO proceeds.

5. It recommends an integrated ‘one water’ approach, where the responsibility and delivery for water supply, wastewater and stormwater sit with the same organisation (which is proposed to be the WO, subject to due diligence).

6. It should be noted that the decision on whether a WO is established or not will be made in early April 2026. This report deals only with the question of whether stormwater should be in the WO if one is established, or whether it should be retained in-house within Council regardless of what service delivery model is chosen for water and wastewater.

Key Findings

7. An integrated ‘one water’ approach offers:

· Operational efficiency and economies of scale - including capex/opex efficiencies and reduced duplication.

· Improved emergency response, especially during extreme weather events where networks interact.

· Better long‑term planning, including climate‑resilience via integrated adaptive pathways planning.

· Greater investment capacity - the WO’s borrowing limit (Free Flow of Funds (FFO):debt of 8%, which in the early years is equivalent to a debt to revenue ratio of 489%) is expected over time to enable more extensive stormwater improvements than may be enabled under the Councils bespoke covenant of 330%. Going forward the ratio used for the WO debt analysis will be measured by FFO:debt ratio. (This is the ratio proposed by the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) which will be a primary lender to waters CCOs),

· Single point of accountability for customers—avoiding confusion of having two Water Service Providers (WSP).

· Less cost for ratepayers.

8. Both WBOPDC and Tangata Whenua strongly support a single integrated water service model.

9. Retaining responsibility for stormwater in-house, whilst transferring water supply and wastewater to the proposed WO increases cost and complexity.

· Tauranga would have two WSP’s (Council + WO), doubling compliance, reporting, and regulatory obligations.

· Additional cost of approximately $60m in total over 7 years would fall to ratepayers primarily due to duplication of oversight and planning, separate oversight arrangements, together with loss of some of the savings from efficiencies and ability to leverage higher borrowing.

· Duplication of some staffing, governance and contract management would be required.

· Reduced economies of scale and reduced sub‑regional coordination.

· Recruitment challenges - specialist roles focused only on stormwater are less attractive than integrated water roles.

10. The report recommends that Council retains ownership of land used for stormwater purposes, regardless of whether a WO is established.

· Recognises land’s multi‑use roles (e.g., recreation, biodiversity).

· Avoids unnecessary asset transfers.

· ‘Hard’ stormwater assets (pipes, pumps, dams, inlets/outlets) should be owned by whichever organisation holds responsibility for stormwater.

· This avoids the operational failures seen where ownership of ‘hard’ assets is split from the management of those assets (e.g. historic Wellington Water arrangements).

11. Stormwater charging under the Act - if stormwater transfers to the WO:

· Property‑value‑based charging must phase out over 5 years.

· New charging mechanisms may include flat fees, impervious-area‑based charging, or geographically tiered charges (these can be based on metrics such as deprivation).

· Councils can influence charging through the WO’s constitution or shareholders’ agreement.

12. If Council retains stormwater responsibility it can continue using property‑value‑based rates. However, this change to the previous decisions of Council would require re-consultation and WSDP amendments before Sept 2026.

13. The options for stormwater were discussed at the Joint Governance Group on 22 December (refer to Attachment 1 of this report).

· Tangata Whenua: Strong support for integrated ‘one water’ model and holistic management of wai.

· WBOPDC: Has already decided to transfer all three waters to the WO and prefers alignment with TCC with both Councils having stormwater in the WO.

Options Assessment – responsibility for stormwater

Option 1 – Integrated Approach (Recommended)

14. Transfer responsibility for stormwater to the proposed WO along with water supply and wastewater.

· Benefits: lowest cost, one WSP, greater investment capacity, operational efficiency, customer clarity, stronger climate resilience.

Option 2 – Retain Stormwater In‑House (Not Recommended)

15. Council keeps responsibility for stormwater.

· Impact: ~$60M extra cost to ratepayers (over 7 years), duplicated regulatory obligations, reduced benefits resulting from integrated sub-regional approach, customer confusion, governance complexity.

Options Assessment – land ownership

Option 1 – Land remains with Council (Recommended)

16. Council retains ownership of land used for stormwater purposes

· Benefits: recognises the dual purpose of many stormwater land parcels, ensures long-term Council control (protecting non-water outcomes), may simplify maintenance. Still allows for case-by-case exceptions.

Option 2 – Council transfers ownership of land to the WO (Not Recommended)

17. Council transfers ownership of stormwater land to the WO, with the exception of land classified as reserve land under the Reserves Act 1977.

· Impacts: the dual-use nature of much of the land is not recognised and non-stormwater uses may not be valued as highly as stormwater (compromising the wider value of the land for the community).

Next steps

18. If Council approves the recommendations of this report and subsequently approves to proceed with the establishment of the proposed WO (decision scheduled for 2 April 2026), the next steps are to:

· transfer responsibility for stormwater to the proposed WO (alongside water supply and wastewater).

· retain Council ownership of land used for stormwater, with case‑by‑case exceptions.

· transfer ownership of stormwater ‘hard’ infrastructure assets to the WO.

· use WO foundation documents to influence charging parameters as noted in paragraphs 49 to 54 if desired.

· develop a detailed Transfer Agreement to cover transfer of responsibilities, assets, and any specific land parcels.

Background

19. Tauranga City Council (Council) and Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) are currently working together to complete due diligence and establishment planning for a proposed joint Water Organisation (WO) under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 (the Act). If established, this WO will deliver water services for the Tauranga and Western Bay sub-region.

20. Both Council and WBOPDC have submitted a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) for approval, and the DIA has approved both WSDPs. These WSDPs adopt an integrated ‘one water’^{^[1]} approach, i.e. they assume that the responsibility for all aspects of water delivery and management (water supply, wastewater, stormwater) will transfer to the proposed WO.

21. Council has also committed to completing further work investigating aspects of stormwater management, including considering the implications of deciding to retain responsibility for stormwater in-house. This report presents the outcomes of that further work and seeks a Council decision regarding future responsibility for stormwater.

22. WBOPDC has decided to transfer responsibility for stormwater to the proposed WO and is not reconsidering this approach.

Water Organisation versus Water Service Provider

23. Under the Act a WO is a company established for the purposes of providing water services, and must be wholly owned by:

· one or more local authorities; or

· one more local authorities and the trustees or one or more consumer trusts; or

· the trustees of one or more consumer trusts.

24. A WO is a Water Services Provider (WSP) under the Act. A WSP is an inclusive term that covers both WOs and local authorities. Most requirements and responsibilities under the Act apply to all WSPs.

25. If Council decides to establish a WO but to only transfer responsibility for water supply and wastewater to the WO, and to retain responsibility for stormwater within Council (in-house), then Council also becomes a WSP. This means that Tauranga residents would have two WSPs and both Council and the WO would need to comply with the regulatory, financial and planning requirements imposed by the Act.

Stormwater as a water service

26. Stormwater is the runoff of rainwater from hard surfaces such as buildings, footpaths and roads. Managing stormwater is about protecting public health and safety by reducing the impacts of flooding on people, property, water quality and eco-systems. The challenge of managing stormwater is increasing with Tauranga’s growing population and changing urban form, and the worsening impacts of climate change.

27. Council’s stormwater network consists of underground pipes, open drains, ponds, wetlands and outlets, spread across six catchment areas which together cover the whole city. Roads and streets are also used as part of Council’s stormwater management approach, and overland flowpaths (which cross private and public property) are mapped and managed via Council’s City Plan and consenting processes. As not all stormwater is treated, Council also invests in public education and regulation to help prevent stormwater pollution of the environment.

28. Responsibility for flooding, storm surges, and related natural events is shared across several agencies, with roles set by multiple pieces of legislation. At present, TCC and WBOPDC manage urban stormwater systems and local flood responses, while Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) is responsible for regional flood protection, hazard management, environmental regulation, and civil defence when events escalate to a regional scale.

· If stormwater is transferred to the Water Organisation (WO), the WO would take over ownership and operation of stormwater infrastructure, hold discharge consents, and maintain those assets, while councils would retain ownership of stormwater land and continue issuing resource and building consents and managing local civil defence responsibilities. BOPRC’s role would remain unchanged.

· Liability for flooding or damage will depend on the specific facts of each event and whether fault can be established. Generally, liability follows operational responsibility. That is, the entity managing stormwater infrastructure (TCC/WBOPDC or WO) would typically carry liability for failures linked to those assets, while BOPRC may bear liability where regional flood protection systems fail due to negligence.

· Where responsibilities are shared (e.g., coastal storm surges or multi‑hazard events), liability is likely to be apportioned between entities based on fault, with each organisation’s insurance responding accordingly.

· Clear allocation of roles and liabilities will need to be defined in transfer and service agreements, particularly where councils retain land ownership but operational responsibility shifts to the WO.

· Any legislative changes affecting regional councils may also alter how these responsibilities intersect in the future.

Past decisions regarding stormwater and options

29. In May 2025 Council resolved (CO/25/14/28):

“c. Approves an integrated, three-waters approach for the delivery of water services, with all three water services (water supply, wastewater and stormwater) delivered through the same organisation.”

30. This report contains a discussion of the pros and cons of keeping stormwater integrated with water supply and wastewater, versus retaining stormwater within Council (in-house) regardless of whether a WO is established. It also considers ownership of land and ‘hard’ assets used for stormwater purposes.

31. In August 2025, Council resolved (CO/25/0/17):

“Notes that the WSDP includes stormwater, and that due to a combination of practical constraints and the statutory deadline for submission of the WSDP that:

a. further work will be done to consider other aspects of stormwater management including assets, ownership, charging and following further information Council may, at a later date, decide to retain stormwater in-house.”

32. This report presents the further work completed considering assets, ownership and charging, and seeks a Council decision as to whether the responsibility for stormwater is retained in-house.

33. The range of options considered by this report are outlined below.

34. Responsibility and delivery

i. Option 1: Council maintains an integrated ‘one water’ approach, keeping the responsibility for, and delivery of, stormwater with that of water supply and wastewater. If a WO is established, all responsibility transfers to the WO. This scenario means Tauranga residents will have only one WSP.

ii. Option 2: Council retains responsibility for stormwater and, if a WO is established, contracts delivery of stormwater to the WO. This means that, if a WO is established, Tauranga residents will have two WSPs.

35. An alternative third approach would be for Council to retain responsibility for, and delivery of, stormwater. This approach has not been modelled and assessed in full, as Council has already given direction that delivery of stormwater is to remain with water supply and wastewater (refer to point 29 above). Although this report does not provide a full assessment of this option, high level considerations are discussed in the options analysis.

36. Discussions on the pros and cons of the different approaches Council may take towards the responsibility and delivery of stormwater are also contained in reports on Local Water Done Well presented to Council on 9 December 2024, 24 March 2025 and 26 May 2025 and in the reading material provided to the Council and WBOPDC Joint Working Group on 22 December 2025 (see Attachment 1). Rather than duplicate this analysis it is cross referenced and not repeated in this report.

37. Ownership of land

i. Option 1: Council, as a general rule, retains ownership of land used for stormwater purposes, regardless of whether a WO is established and has responsibility for delivery of stormwater.

ii. Option 2: The ownership of land used for stormwater purposes sits with the organisation (either Council or WO) that has responsibility for stormwater, except for land classified as reserve land under the Reserves Act 1977^{^[2]} which will remain with Council under all scenarios.

38. Ownership of ‘hard’ assets: this report recommends that the ownership of stormwater ‘hard’ infrastructure assets, such as all pipes, pump stations, dams, inlets and outlets etc, sits with the organisation (either Council or the WO) which has the responsibility for stormwater. Whilst legally it would be possible for Council to transfer responsibility for stormwater to the proposed WO whilst retaining ownership of ‘hard’ assets, this option is impractical, particularly from an operational perspective, and for this reason a full options analysis has not been completed.

39. An example of where one organisation had responsibility for delivering the service, whilst several other organisations owned the ‘hard’ assets was the Wellington Water model. Over time this led to inconsistent infrastructure investment decisions.

Legislative context and regulatory considerations

40. From a legislative perspective, the Act accommodates a range of approaches in relation to the responsibility for, and delivery of stormwater, as well as a range of options in terms of asset ownership.

41. Importantly, asset ownership does not equate to responsibility under the Act. This allows Council to retain ownership of land used for stormwater purposes whilst transferring responsibility for stormwater to the proposed WO.

42. Regardless of who owns the assets, a party that holds responsibility for one or more water services (either fully or in part) is considered a WSP. The Act places a range of responsibilities onto WSPs, including preparing a Water Services Strategy, annual budget processes, auditing requirements and reports, compliance to regulatory standards, levies to the regulator(s) etc.

43. If Council chooses to retain responsibility for stormwater, and the proposed WO assumes responsibility for water supply and wastewater, this will trigger further public consultation followed by developing an amended WSDP and submitting this to the DIA (by no later than 3 September 2026). The Minister of Internal Affairs may or may not choose to approve a revised WSDP.

Operational considerations

44. Council’s current water management approach is that of ‘one water’, and there is no team dedicated solely to stormwater management. The WSDP also takes a ‘one water’ approach. If Council chooses to retain responsibility for stormwater in-house, whilst transferring responsibility for water supply and wastewater to the proposed WO, this would fragment the current ‘one water’ approach and result in the following:

· Duplication of staff and duplication of knowledge and compliance. Separating the responsibility for stormwater from water supply and wastewater would (in the event the proposed WO is established) create two WSPs for Tauranga, both subject to regulatory and reporting requirements. As WBOPDC are proposing to transfer responsibility of stormwater to the WO, there would need to be stormwater expertise within the WO. If Council retains responsibility for stormwater, then Council would also need to have in-house expertise (even if delivery was contracted to the WO).

· Increases in cost due to duplication, co-ordination of cross-organisational decision-making, governance and contract management.

· Decreases in economies of scale (for both capex and opex). The financial modelling completed for the proposed WO demonstrates expected savings for Tauranga residents due to economies of scale resulting from the multi-council nature of the proposed WO and from adopting a ‘one water’ approach for the sub-region. These savings will decrease if stormwater is retained in-house by Council (see the financial considerations section of this report).

· Decreased opportunity to invest in stormwater improvements. The proposed WO will have the ability to borrow up to an 8% FFO:Debt ratio, which equates to close to 500% debt to revenue based on TCC’s 2027/28 Financial model. Under a council bespoke covenant borrowing is limited to 330% debt to revenue ratio. This greater debt capacity opens up investment opportunity for stormwater and flood management improvement works.

· Difficulty attracting skilled staff (to Council). Currently the integrated approach that Council takes in terms of water management means that staff can, and do, work on multiple aspects of water service delivery. If Council retains stormwater in-house, whilst moving water supply and wastewater to the proposed WO, then Council will need to create roles focussed solely on stormwater. This is expected to be less attractive overall to potential candidates than roles which offer a wider focus and better opportunities for career development and progression.

· Lack of clarity for customers. Having two WSPs for Tauranga would result in customers/ratepayers being charged/rated for water services from two organisations, by the WO for water supply and wastewater and by the Council for stormwater. This is likely to create confusion. Customers may also be confused as to which organisation is responsible for what.

· Less effective responses in an emergency management situation (and less effective pollution prevention). The differentiations between stormwater, water supply and wastewater are largely due to the different treatment approaches and separated hard infrastructure (pipes, pumps etc.). During emergency events such as storm events, or large earthquakes, there is often cross-contamination between the different systems. This can be more effectively managed when service delivery is integrated and within the one organisation, particularly if this organisation has sub-regional jurisdiction (versus city-only).

45. If all aspects of water service delivery are moved to the proposed WO there will still need to be ongoing coordination between Council activities and the WO, particularly in the areas of land use planning and the management and maintenance of land used for stormwater purposes (which is recommended to remain in Council ownership). It is proposed that these interconnections will be managed via relationship agreements and/or service level agreements between Council and the WO.

46. Past Council reports which discussed options for the responsibility and delivery of water services (integrated versus split), include 24 March 2025 and 26 May 2025.

Climate impact

47. Whilst the stormwater, water supply and wastewater each have their own infrastructure network, the nature of water means that when issues or failures occur within one network, the other networks are also impacted. For example, a wastewater or water supply failure will affect the stormwater network.

48. As extreme weather events increase due to climate change, the likelihood of network failures also increases. An integrated approach will assist emergency management responses and improve outcomes for people, properties and the environment.

49. Additionally, as the impacts of a changing climate continue to be felt on a day-to-day basis, water service providers are utilising dynamic adaptive pathways planning. This planning tool enables asset owners to explore the outcomes of multiple scenarios, allowing for the development of a flexible but clear roadmap (adaptive plan) that can accommodate future uncertainty. The best outcomes can be achieved via this tool when an integrated approach is taken towards total water management.

Future options for stormwater charging

50. The Act introduces two elements which will change the way that WOs charge for stormwater services.

i. The introduction of ‘stormwater service zone/s’, which requires WOs to charge for stormwater based on whether a property is inside or outside of the stormwater service zone. This is intended to result in a 2-tiered charging approach based on location (noting that to be part of a stormwater service zone, land must be part of, or adjacent to, an urban area and receiving or having available to it stormwater services provided by the WO).

ii. Removing, over time, the ability to base charges for stormwater services on property value. Under Council, stormwater is funded by rates (largely based on property values). Under the Act, a WO will have to use a different charging method over time. The Act allows for WOs to gradually transfer from charging based on property value to an alternative charging method over a 5-year period.

51. After 5 years the WO must use another charging method which must be both reasonable and not based on land value. Charging methods could include any of the following (or a combination of the following):

· A flat fee per property (or per connection).

· A tiered fee based on land area or impervious surface area (since bigger hard-surfaced properties generate more runoff).

· A differentiated fee based on land use or location (e.g. residential vs commercial, or different charges for different suburbs if justified by different service costs).

· Using socioeconomic factors – the WO could set lower stormwater charges for areas with high deprivation index as a policy choice (as long as it’s reasonable and not simply being used as a proxy for property value).

· Other fee structures that are not based on property value.

52. The default position under the Act excludes shareholders (councils) from directly dictating operational decisions, such as setting of charges, which would be set by the WO’s Board. However, there is the ability to bypass this exclusion (allowed for under s 228(4) of the Act). The WO’s foundation documents (the Constitution or Shareholders Agreement) can explicitly override the default position for certain matters (such as charging).

53. This would look like Council and WBOPDC agreeing to include a clause in the WO’s Constitution or Shareholders’ Agreement that allows the Statement of Expectation to address stormwater charging mechanisms. Without such provisions being included in the foundation documents, any direction in the Statement of Expectation would have to stay at a high-level (e.g. urging that stormwater charges be kept affordable, without mandating the exact mechanism).

54. However, it is important to note that where there is inconsistency between the requirements imposed by a regulator (e.g. the Commerce Commission), and the requirements contained within a SOE, the regulator’s requirements will prevail.⁹

55. If Council does not transfer responsibility for stormwater to the WO, then Council would be the WSP, would charge customers/ratepayers for stormwater services (even if those services were delivered by the WO), and could continue to charge based on property value. Council would have the legal responsibility to meet all regulatory requirements associated with stormwater.

Financial considerations

Additional Revenue required to cover higher costs if stormwater remains with Council

56. There is an additional revenue requirement of approximately $60m over 7 years ($61.3m in the model) if the responsibility for stormwater remains in-house over the 7 years modelled. Rates would need to be increased to meet this requirement. The key items impacting on additional rates are outlined below.

57. If Council keeps the WO responsibility in-house, then there are expected to be some duplication of roles within TCC and the WO. The estimate used in the model is that there would be approximately $1.75m of additional costs have been identified. Of these, $300k will be duplicated even if the WO has responsibility for all aspects of water service delivery (i.e. stormwater, as well as water supply and wastewater). For this reason, the modelling has assumed an additional $1.45m of costs. With 2% inflation, this gives a total additional cost of $10.8m over the 7 years to 2034. These additional costs would be reflected in higher rates requirements. The proposed positions on which this estimate is based are included as Attachment 4. It is noted in the attachment that no additional operational costs of these positions are included. However, it has been assumed that the direct costs of the additional activity could be provided within total potential staff costs identified in Attachment 4. The overall cost estimate is a high-level estimate of roles and responsibilities to be carried out. If the additional costs were less, say by $200k per annum, it would translate to approximately $1.48m over the 7 years (plus inflation), so the additional staff costs of in-housing would, in that scenario, be closer to $9.3m over that period.

58. A WO can borrow more than a Council as discussed in paragraph 61 below. This additional borrowing capacity provides the WO with the opportunity to either invest more in assets or keep water charges lower. For modelling purposes, it is assumed that this capacity is used to keep prices down. In the modelling for a WO with the responsibility for all facets of water service delivery this results in $200m of revenue savings. If the responsibility for stormwater (together with ‘hard’ assets) remains in-house then this saving available to the WO reduces to $151m generating increased costs to customers/connections of $49m.

59. Combined, these figures result in increased costs to customers/ratepayers of approximately $60m over 7-years if the responsibility for stormwater remains in-house. This equates in total to circa $140 per annum per connection initially. In the financials shown in attachment 2 this cost increase barely shows in the graph because the difference is less than $10m on total revenue of $438m.

60. We have assumed that the WO would deliver stormwater (day-to-day management and operations) under both options. This means that the capex and opex efficiencies modelled by MartinJenkins, and previously reported to Council, would be applicable to both scenarios and generate no difference in the financial impacts.

Debt capacity impacts between stormwater in a CCO or within council

61. Council has a debt to revenue ratio of 330% based on a current bespoke covenant with LGFA. This ratio applies across all council borrowing but does not apply to a waters CCO which has a different covenant of FFO:Debt ratio of 8%. Using 2028 figures the FFO:Debt ratio equates to a debt to revenue ratio for waters of 489%. This means that using the two structures - a CCO for all waters and Council for all other activities provides greater ability to borrow overall for a given level of revenue.

62. Based on the WSDP, the WO debt was modelled to be $743m by 2028. Together with remaining Council debt of $1,637m by 2028 this gives total debt for both Council and WO of $2,380m. If we add the revenue assumed for waters in 2028 ($152m) with the total revenue for Council in 2028 ($524m) we get a total revenue of $676m. This results in a debt to revenue ratio of 352% which would exceed Council’s bespoke covenant if all revenue and debt was to be included within council and demonstrates the advantage of using the two organisational structures.

63. As discussed in paragraph 55 above, if stormwater comes in house, the costs of delivery and the associated revenue to fund those costs increases. Because one of the reasons for the cost increase of in-housing stormwater is that the option of increasing debt rather than charging customers more is foregone for stormwater. This means both aspects of the debt to revenue ratio improve. Revenue is higher (ratepayers/ customers pay more) and debt is lower for stormwater. Using the 2028 figures these adjustments to debt and revenue would give a debt to revenue ratio for council with stormwater in house of 307% compared to a ratio for Council that year without stormwater of 312%. More detail on this is included in attachment 2.

64. Within the CCO, the FFO:Debt ratio remains similar whether the CCO is responsible for two waters or three.

65. In summary from the perspective of the financial borrowing ratio, there is a small short-term improvement in Council’s ratio if TCC retains the Stormwater assets in house and becomes the WSP. See Figure 1 for the impact on council debt to revenue ratio and Figure 2 for the impact on the WO’s FFO to debt ratio.

Figure 1: Comparison between Council debt to revenue ratio for the two options (‘one water’ approach versus keeping responsibility for stormwater in-house)

Figure 2: Comparison between the WO’s (referred to as CCO in the graph) FFO to debt ratio for the two options (‘one water’ approach versus keeping responsibility for stormwater in-house)

66. More detail on the financial modelling and commentary on the outcomes is included as Attachment 2. The higher debt headroom in 2028 from keeping stormwater in house and charging ratepayers more than in a CCO is $35M. However, this debt headroom advantage reverses over time based on modelled trends in revenue requirements relative to debt increases associated with the proposed capital programme (outlined in Figure 1 above).

Other Financial Issues

67. If stormwater assets are retained in-house this will create complexities that will need to be resolved between Council and the WO, such as:

· the funding and financing of capital expenditure. This especially relates to the adequacy of renewals and the prioritisation of stormwater capital works.

· Note: that stormwater will be excluded from the rates capping legislation if waters assets are held in-house.

Feedback from the Joint Working Group

68. Options for how Council may manage stormwater, including the options put forward by this report, were presented to the Joint Working Group (consisting of Council, WBOPDC and Tangata Whenua). This provided Tangata Whenua and WBOPDC the opportunity to provide feedback regarding their preferences.

69. Tangata Whenua – Tangata Whenua expressed a strong desire for Council to choose a ‘one water’ approach, keeping the responsibility for, and delivery of, stormwater with that of water supply and wastewater. Wai (water) is a precious taonga and the distinctions of stormwater, wastewater and water supply create an artificial separation. It is essential to adopt a holistic management approach to maintain the ongoing mauri (lifeforce) of wai and this is most easily achieved when one organisation holds both responsibility for, and delivery of, all aspects of wai.

70. WBOPDC – WBOPDC has made the decision to transfer all their water services, in full, to the WO (subject to due diligence). WBOPDC are not intending to revisit this decision and have expressed a preference for TCC to transfer responsibility for, and delivery of, water supply, wastewater and stormwater to the proposed WO. From WBOPDC’s perspective, these factors collectively support a more sustainable and coordinated approach to water management across the western Bay of Plenty. They have signalled that alignment by both councils would maximise the benefits of the proposed WO model and generate the strongest long-term benefits for both councils and their communities.

Other multi-council Water Organisations decisions

71. WOs which take a ‘one water’ approach are considered best practice but are still a relatively new approach. However, central government’s water reforms have encouraged water providers (councils) to apply a long-term transformational perspective towards the delivery of water. Whilst councils have responded by choosing a variety of models to deliver water services, the majority of these models will retain a fully integrated ‘one water’ approach.

72. The graph and table below illustrate these choices and Attachment 3 provides a further breakdown at a council level (note, Auckland is excluded from this modelling, data has been sourced from approved WSDPs available on DIA website).

Figure 3 – Capture of 67 Council decisions on approach to Stormwater responsibility (WSP)

73. The graph above shows that most councils (53) have decided to keep the delivery and responsibility for stormwater with that of water supply and wastewater, regardless of whether that is via a single council WO, a multi-council WO or an in-house business unit. Only fourteen councils have decided to separate the responsibility for stormwater from that of water supply and wastewater.

74. Table 1, below, shows that approximately 76% of New Zealand’s population (excluding Auckland) will have water services delivered via an integrated ‘one water’ approach.

Options Analysis - Responsibility for delivery of stormwater

Option 1: Maintain an integrated approach, keeping the responsibility for stormwater with that of water supply and wastewater. (RECOMMENDED)

75. Choosing this option means that if Council proceeds to establish a Water Organisation, the responsibility for stormwater will transfer to the WO along with water supply and wastewater. This option aligns with Council’s Water Services Delivery Plan and the current operating model currently employed by Council. It will also mean there is one WSP.

76. The pros and cons assume that Council proceeds to establish a WO.

77. Estimated cost: As per WSDP’s modelled costs and debt.

78. Key risk: The WO is not able to develop a charging methodology that adequately recognises socio-economic factors (noting however that the WO is able to use metrics such as the deprivation index to inform charging).

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No requirement to amend WSDP or re-consult.

· Only one WSP (being the WO).

· Scope for the WO to achieve economies of scale efficiencies.

· Aligns with the position expressed by WBOPDC and Tangata Whenua

· If both Councils transfer responsibility to the WO, then the WO will be able to take a consistent approach to stormwater across all of the cross-boundary catchments between TCC land and WBOPDC land.

· The WO will be responsible for delivering 3 waters for both Councils, and the Board will not face any competing interests that may arise if the WO is responsible for delivering 2 waters for one Council and 3 waters for the other Council.

· Improved emergency management, due to greater sub-regional integration.

· Easier to attract and retain skilled staff due to the ability for staff to increase water management knowledge across the full range of water services.

· Acknowledges the inherent connected nature of water and water services.

· Provides greater opportunity to invest in stormwater infrastructure (due to the WO higher debt capacity).

· Greater clarity for customers as only one organisation is delivering water services.

· The Council will not be directly responsible for setting stormwater charges, and after 5 years the WO will not be able to use a property’s rateable value as the basis for setting charges.

· There is a risk that charges by the water organisation may not take account of relative affordability across the area serviced by the CCO in the same way that an elected council may consider these matters and address them through property value charging approach.

Option 2: Retain the responsibility for stormwater within Council, regardless of whether Council retains responsibility for water supply and wastewater. (NOT RECOMMENDED)

79. Choosing this option means that if Council proceeds to establish a WO as planned, the responsibility for stormwater would stay with Council, whilst the responsibility for water supply and wastewater would transfer to the WO. Ownership of all land used for stormwater along with ‘hard’ assets would remain with Council. This option would have the effect of creating two WSPs for Tauranga and does not align with Council’s WSDP.

80. Estimated cost: additional cost to ratepayers of approximately $60m over the next 7 years.

81. Key risks: That ratepayers end up paying more, that the WO cannot fully achieve the anticipated benefits from economies of scale, and that the sub-region does not benefit as anticipated from a fully integrated ‘one water’ approach that crosses council boundaries.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· The Council will be responsible for setting stormwater charges and will have the ability to use rateable property values.

· Ownership of all land used for stormwater along with ‘hard’ assets would remain with Council.

· Ratepayers pay more.

· This will be a structural change to the WSDP that requires re-consultation with the public. This would need to occur within a very constricted timeframe, because WSDP’s cannot be changed after 3 September 2026.

· There will be 2 WSPs, meaning a duplication of statutory obligations. Those statutory obligations require significant investment in terms of time and resources (they will not be a mere “form-filling” exercise).

· Unable to fully realise the non-financial benefits resulting from fully integrated ‘one water’ approach across the sub-region.

· Likelihood that WO will provide 2 water services for one Council, and 3 water services for the other. This will likely impact WO governance dynamics.

· Customer confusion, as there will be two WSPs for Tauranga residents.

· Council’s in-house WSP may struggle to attract skilled staff as the WO will be viewed as the more attractive option from a career development perspective.

· Emergency management will require higher levels of coordination as more than one WSP will be involved.

· The anticipated economies of scale for the WO will be reduced.

Alternative Option: Council retains the responsibility for, and delivery of, stormwater.

82. This option would see all aspects of stormwater responsibility and delivery remaining in-house, along with all land and hard assets. This approach does not reflect decisions made to date by Council. Given Council decisions have not supported this approach, a full options analysis is not provided. This alternative option carries the disadvantages of option 2, with additional disadvantages associated with recruiting and retaining resources to deliver these services along with the need to partially novate contractual arrangements with Downer which currently delivers a full range of services across three waters.

83. Council and WBOPDC currently holds a joint contract with Downer for the delivery of maintenance activities across the water supply, wastewater and stormwater networks. This contract will be fully novated across to the proposed WO. If Council keeps responsibility for delivery, Council will either need to become an additional party to this contract or exit the contract and develop an individual one. This would be complex and incur additional costs (both initially and on an ongoing basis).

84. The additional costs to ratepayers of this option would be higher than option 2 above, reflecting the need to manage the network assets in house, undertake asset management planning, as well as managing the performance of a maintenance contract. The additional costs have not been modelled.

Options Analysis - Confirming ownership of land used for stormwater purposes

Option 1: Council, as a general rule, confirms it will retain ownership of land used for stormwater purposes, regardless of whether that land is classified as reserve land under the Reserves Act 1977, and regardless of whether a WO is established (RECOMMENDED)

85. Choosing this option means that the ownership of the majority of land used for stormwater purposes would remain with Council, whilst still allowing Council the flexibility to transfer ownership of specific land parcels to the proposed WO, on a case-by-case basis. Transfer of land assets to the WO will occur via a Transfer Agreement.

86. This approach is recommended as it recognises that many land parcels which are used for stormwater purposes are also used for recreational and/or other purposes by Council. It allows continued management of this land by Council, streamlining operational processes and protecting its multi-use status moving forward.

87. Estimated cost: as per WSDP

88. Key risk: Other land uses are prioritised over stormwater outcomes.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Recognises the dual-use nature of many of the land parcels used for stormwater purposes.

· Ensures Council retains ultimate control over the management of land used of stormwater purposes which ensures non-water outcomes (such as biodiversity and recreational use) continue to be valued alongside stormwater management.

· May simplify maintenance arrangements.

· Council retains any debt associated with these land parcels (however Council also retains the value of these assets).

Option 2: Council, as a general rule, would transfer ownership of land used for stormwater purposes to the WO, if established, except when that land as classified as reserve land under the Reserves Act 1977. (NOT RECOMMENDED)

89. This option would see the majority of land used for stormwater transferred to the proposed WO, including land used for recreational purposes. Transfer of land assets to the WO will occur via a Transfer Agreement.

90. The exception would be land classified as reserve land under the Reserves Act 1977. It would be impractical to transfer this land due to the need to first revoke its reserve status under the Act.

91. Estimated cost: financial modelling has not been completed for this option.

92. Key risk: Land which is used for stormwater purposes, but which also fulfils other critical functions for Tauranga residents, is no longer in Council ownership and non-water outcomes (such as biodiversity and recreational use) may not be valued as highly as stormwater functionality

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Council’s debt decreases (but so will Council’s asset value)

· Does not recognise the dual-use nature of many of the land parcels used for stormwater purposes.

· Council has decreased control over the management of land used of stormwater purposes and non-water outcomes (such as biodiversity and recreational use) may not be valued as highly as stormwater functionality.

· Maintenance arrangements may require greater coordination.

Stormwater ‘hard’ assets

93. This report recommends that ownership of the ‘hard’ assets (excludes land) with responsibility for their management is transferred to the WO. A full options analysis has not been completed for this (see earlier points 37-38).

Statutory Context

94. The Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 (referred to as the Act in this report) and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2025 set out the enduring settings for the new water services system. The Act provides councils with options for the provision of water services.

95. The Act provides a high degree of flexibility in regards to the delivery of, and responsibility for, stormwater, as is discussed earlier in this report (refer to the section ‘Legislative context and regulatory considerations’).

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

96. The recommendations made by this report contribute to the achievement of the following community outcomes:

	Contributes
An inclusive city	☐
A city that values, protects and enhances the environment	ü
A well-planned city that is easy to move around	ü
A city that supports business and education	☐
A vibrant city that embraces events	☐

97. This report recommends adopting a ‘one water’ approach, with one organisation to have the responsibility for, and delivery of, wastewater, water supply and stormwater, and, as a general rule, for the ownership of land used for stormwater to remain with Council. This approach delivers environmental benefits, economies of scale, and supports integrated planning and delivery. The recommended approach also avoids the creation of two water service providers for Tauranga residents.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

98. Council has committed to engage with Tangata Whenua as part of its ongoing planning work for the proposed WO. This is largely occurring via the inclusion of Tangata Whenua representatives on the Joint Working Group,

99. The inclusion of Tangata Whenua representatives on the Joint Working Group with Council and WBOPDC elected members is part of Council’s commitment to the principles of Te Ao Māori, and particularly recognises the principles of:

· Rangatiratanga (self determination, best practice and reciprocity)

· Kaitiakitanga (stewardship of the natural environment)

· Wairuatanga (belief systems that support instinct and intuition in line with whāia te tika – the pursuit of the right way forward)

100. The Tangata Whenua representatives on the Joint Working Group have strongly expressed their view that the division of wai (water) into the three activities of stormwater, water supply and wastewater is an artificial construct, as all wai is one, and that for this reason, the responsibility for all water should remain together to enable an integrated management and delivery approach (refer also to point 64).

Past consultation with Tangata Whenua

101. Council completed formal consultation on the proposal to establish a WO for stormwater, water supply and wastewater alongside the 2025/2026 Annual Plan. As part of this consultation, Council received a submission from Te Rangapū supporting the creation of a multi-council WO and requesting that Council ensures Tangata Whenua representation on the board of any WO, and that co-governance and co-design principles are built into the establishment and operations of any future WO. There were subsequent discussions on the Te Rangapu views when there was consideration of Thames Coromandel District Council joining the WO (this has been addressed in previous Council reports).

102. Overall, the Te Rangapū submission argued that Tangata Whenua partnership is essential to any CCO achieving long-term positive outcomes and that the principle of kaitiakitanga is upheld and the mauri of wai is protected.

103. Council also received submissions from several iwi, hapū and Māori landowners, largely focused on infrastructure and land ownership.

· Otanewainuku Whanau Trust

· Maungatapu Marae Committee and Trustees

· Ngāti Pūkenga ki Tauranga

104. Following this formal consultation, Council received a position paper from Tangata Whenua which was tabled at Council on 5 August 2025. Whilst this paper does not specifically focus on a ‘one water’ approach versus splitting responsibility for water services, it does contain relevant principles, most notably:

· that the proposed WO must ensure the mauri, health and wellbeing of water and water bodies is central to its decision-making.

· that the proposed WO will only recognise the voice of iwi and hapū specific to the respective rohe when considering issues relating to a rohe, including issues associated with a water resource or product which is sourced, transmitted, treated or discharged in that rohe (i.e. avoid overreach by other iwi/hapū or councils into established rohe boundaries).

· that Council will ensure that the views of Tangata Whenua are given equal weight to other key considerations (such as financial viability) when determining the preferred WO model.

Guidance provided by iwi and hapū management plans

105. There are a number of iwi and hapū management plans which have been lodged with Council, two pan tribal plans covering Tauranga Moana and Te Awanui (Tauranga harbour), and further plans with individual iwi and hapū. These plans describe resource management issues which are of importance to Tangata Whenua. Wai (water) features prominently in these plans, with common themes including the:

· need for effective management of stormwater.

· overall importance of caring for wai to ensure the wellbeing of current and future communities

· interconnections between the moana and freshwater tributaries.

Consultation / Engagement

106. Consultation on the proposal to establish a multi-council WO occurred alongside the consultation for the 2025/2026 Annual Plan and the Deliberations Report from 5 May 2025 outlines community feedback. None of the options consulted on contemplated separating the responsibility for stormwater from that of water supply and wastewater.

107. If Council decides to retain responsibility for stormwater in-house this would result in the need to revise the current WSDP and reconsult. This will have a ‘knock-on’ effect with WBOPDC to some extent, as the two Council WSDPs have been assessed alongside each other.

Significance

108. 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.

109. 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.

110. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of medium significance as it has moderate public interest, moderate impact on Council, and would be moderately difficult to reverse.

ENGAGEMENT

111. 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.

112. No further engagement is required as Council has already completed consultation from March to April 2025. Council is also engaging with Tangata Whenua on an ongoing basis in relation to the proposed establishment of the WO.

113. If Council decides not to retain the responsibility for stormwater with that of water supply and wastewater, then Council would need to complete further consultation.

Next Steps

114. The next steps depend on whether Council decides:

· To approve the recommendations of this report.

· To proceed with establishment of the proposed WO.

115. If Council does decide to proceed as per the recommendations of this report, and with the proposed WO, the next steps would include development of a Transfer Agreement. This would be a detailed document which will set out the process for transferring responsibility of stormwater, and ownership of stormwater ‘hard’ assets to the WO. It would also capture the transfer of any specific land parcels (noting that it is proposed that the majority of stormwater land will stay with Council).

Attachments

1. Joint Governance Group material from 22 December 2025 - A19660951 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - LWDW Summary of WSDP vs SW inhouse - A19689206 ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - LWDW Other Multi Council Water Organisation Decisions - A19688996 ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - LWDW Stormwater IBU assessment of Costs and service requirements - A19705258 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

10 February 2026

11.2 Submission on Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill

File Number: A19671732

Author: Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of the key submission points for Tauranga City Council (Council) to make a submission to the Select Committee regarding the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill which will replace the Resource Management Act.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Submission on Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill".

(b) Endorse the key submission points included as Attachment 1 on the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill to be included in a detailed submission to the Select Committee.

(c) Delegates to the Chief Executive to approve the submission on the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill to the Select Committee.

Executive Summary

2. On 9 December 2025, central Government introduced the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill. The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill is proposed to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and provide a new planning system which will directly affect how council delivers growth, infrastructure, natural environmental management, consenting and long-term planning.

3. Submissions on the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill close at 4.30pm on 13 February, and it is intended that the legislation is passed into law by mid-2026.

4. Staff are preparing a detailed submission, which generally supports the new planning system. The submission also sets out where it is considered that provisions are unworkable, confusing or amendments can be made to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Due to the time constraints to prepare the submission, only the key submission points to be included in the detailed submission are included in Attachment 1 for endorsement.

Background

5. The Government has set out three phases of resource management reform. Phase 3 is the replacement of the RMA with two new laws, the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill.

6. A major change in the new system is the shift to two separate Acts proposed through the two Bills:

· A Planning Bill that establishes a framework for planning and regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land.

· A Natural Environment Bill that establishes a framework for the use, protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

The new planning system is based on a blueprint developed by the Expert Advisory Group on Resource Management Reform.

7. Central Government expected outcomes of the new legislation include:

· Enhanced property rights through regulations that focus on only controlling impacts on the environment and other people. There will also be greater availability of relief if property rights are infringed.

· A simpler, faster and more cost-effective system for users and councils with fewer consents, more direction from government, and clear, fair rules.

· Future-ready planning that meets housing and infrastructure needs, while managing and reducing risks from natural hazards.

· A digitally enabled system providing better access to information, with trusted data driving faster decisions, and better performance monitoring.

· Māori interests and the Treaty of Waitangi are provided for.

· Improved environmental outcomes and innovation encouraged by enabling growth and development within environmental limits.

8. The new system approach makes the system more directive from the top, ensuring consistency across the country, and allowing local communities to focus on applying that approach in their area. It will make decision-making more focused at each stage of the planning system. As the process narrows, fewer things would be up for debate, saving time and money. It is also intended to give people greater certainty about what they can and can’t do, helping them understand likely outcomes before they begin.

9. The Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill creates a system that will operate like a funnel, starting with clear goals that narrow what can be considered at the top and each level of the system. The system architecture in the Bill comprises:

· A set of goals that tightly define the scope of the system:

· A set of national instruments, comprising:

o National policy direction (NPD) that particularises the goals:

o National standards that provide further detailed direction for implementing the NPD and standardised direction for decision-making and plans, nationally standardised rules and zones, and methods to identify matters such as outstanding natural features, indigenous biodiversity, sites of significance to Māori:

· A single combined plan for each region made up of three integrated components:

o A regional spatial plan that implements the national instruments to support urban development and infrastructure provision within environmental limits; and

o A land use plan under that the Planning Bill implements spatial plans by applying nationally standardised zones, rules, and methodologies; and

o A natural environment plan under the Natural Environment Bill implements spatial plans by applying standardised overlays, rules, and methodologies; and

10. Consents will be issued under the Planning Bill and permits under the Natural Environment Bill.

11. Each instrument must implement the one above it (the land use plans and the natural environment plans operate at the same level of the funnel under each Bill).

12. At the consenting level, councils will manage fewer effects using a higher threshold, reducing the number of consents required. Community engagement is intended to primarily occur during the spatial and land use plan development rather than at the consenting level (as per the RMA).

13. This is intended to make the system simpler and more efficient, reducing re-litigation of matters that have already been decided higher up in the system and reduce the number of consents needed. The levels of the system are outlined in more detail below.

Statutory Context

5. The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill is Phase 3 of the resource management reforms. It is proposed that Council make a submission on the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill to the Select Committee as the proposed new system will have a direct impact on resource management processes that Council are responsible for.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

7. The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill proposes a new resource management system which will directly affect how council delivers growth, infrastructure, natural environmental management, consenting and long-term planning.

Financial Considerations

8. There are no financial considerations associated with this report.

Legal Implications / Risks

9. Legal advice has been obtained to assist staff understand the implications and opportunities of the proposed changes in the Bill. The legal advice has informed the draft submission.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

10. Engagement has been undertaken with the Te Pou Takawaenga team. A number of key submission points relate to tangata whenua is set out in Attachment 1. These submission points were provided to the Te Rangapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana for feedback.

CLIMATE IMPACT

11. The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill considers climate through natural hazards. There is also proposed to be the consideration of adaptation planning through the regional spatial plan process. Submission points support the climate change aspects within the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill, however, seek amendments to strengthen these provisions such as proposing a definition for climate change.

Consultation / Engagement

12. In preparing the draft submission and key submission points, the City Planning and Growth team has sought input and feedback from subject matter experts throughout Council. All feedback has been collated and included in the draft submission.

13. In addition, staff have been discussing submission points with the SmartGrowth partners and other councils across the country.

Significance

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter is of low significance. This is a submission to be lodged, the decision making sits with central government.

ENGAGEMENT

17. 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

18. Following endorsement of the key submission points included as Attachment 1, the detailed submission will be finalised and approved by the Chief Executive. Once approved, the submission will be lodged.

19. We will request the opportunity to speak to the TCC submission.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1: Key Submission Points on Natural Environment and Planning Bills - A19671723 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

10 February 2026

11.3 Draft submission on Simplifying Local Government proposal

File Number: A19488962

Author: Anne Payne, Principal Strategic Advisor

Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider and approve Council’s draft submission to the Government’s Simplifying Local Government draft proposal.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft submission on Simplifying Local Government proposal".

(b) Approves the draft submission “Tauranga City Council Submission – Simplifying Local Government draft proposal” included as Attachment 1 to this report, with the following amendments:

(i) (to be added during the meeting if necessary).

(c) Delegates authority to the General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth to make minor drafting, typographical, and presentation amendments as required prior to formally lodging the submission ahead of the 20 February 2026 deadline.

Executive Summary

2. On 27 November 2025, the Government released a draft proposal on Simplifying Local Government (the proposal), with feedback sought by 20 February and a final proposal signalled for release in March 2026.

3. The proposal aims to address the Government’s view that the local government system is not working well by making local government easier to understand, reducing duplication, and delivering better value for ratepayers.

4. The proposed approach is to replace regional councillors with a new governance board comprising all city and district mayors from the region, called a Combined Territories Board (CTB). The CTB would also be required, within a two-year time period, to develop a regional reorganisation plan (RRP). The RRP would require final approval by the Minister of Local Government, with input from the Local Government Commission. The expectation is that regional councils would no longer exist (at governance or organisational level) once the RRPs are implemented, and that there is also potential for some structural change for city and district councils within each region.

5. Key points from Council’s draft submission on this draft proposal are that we support the Government’s intention to improve the local government system, however:

· We believe the Government should go further in specifying its envisaged local government system

· Resourcing from the Government to support mayors, the Local Government Commission, and the transition will be essential to success

· We propose an alternative staged approach where regional councillors continue to govern the day-to-day operations until the regional reorganisation plan developed by the combined territories board has been approved, and

· We believe there is a risk that environmental protection functions may be deprioritised if this proposal proceeds as drafted, depending on the results from the Government’s current rapid review of regional council functions.

· Determining the new arrangements should be progressed at some pace, with implementation in parallel with other reforms where it is practical and efficient to do so.

6. Once the draft submission is approved, the next step is to lodge it with the Department of Internal Affairs by due date of 20 February 2026.

Background

7. On 27 November 2025, the Government released a draft proposal on Simplifying Local Government (the proposal)^{^[3]}, which aims to make local government easier to understand, reduce duplication, and deliver better value for ratepayers. The proposed approach intends to provide a framework for regions to design what works best for them

8. The first part of the proposal is to replace regional councillors with a new governance board comprising all city and district mayors from the region, called a Combined Territories Board (CTB), which may also include an appointed commissioner with or without voting rights. Alongside existing regional council governance responsibilities, the CTB would also be responsible for decision-making required by the concurrent resource management reforms, including the new regional spatial plans and regional natural environment plans. The city and district mayors on the CTB would be responsible for representing all of their constituencies, and no specific regional Māori constituencies are proposed.

9. The proposal notes that central Government is currently undertaking a review of regional council roles and functions to clarify which responsibilities are to remain local and which may be either centralised or discontinued. This review will be completed before CTBs are established.

10. The second part of the proposal is to require the CTB to develop, within two-years, a regional reorganisation plan (RRP) that sets out how councils would work together to deliver services more effectively and efficiently across the region. The RRP would require final approval by the Minister of Local Government, with input from the Local Government Commission.

11. The proposal is that, once the RRPs are implemented, regional councils would no longer exist (at governance or organisational level) and the city and district councils would deliver all local government services in a more joined up way, which may include structural change if this is deemed beneficial for their communities.

12. The Government is seeking public feedback on the proposal by 20 February and has signalled that a final proposal will be released in March 2026.

discussion

13. Following input from Elected Members, Council’s draft submission has been prepared and is included as Attachment 1 to this report, for consideration and approval. Key points from the draft submission are that:

· The Council supports the aims of the draft proposal to simplify local government to make it easier to understand, reduce duplication, and deliver better value for ratepayers; and the intention for local (regional) solutions to be developed rather than a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed by central government. However, the Council also has several key concerns with this proposal.

· There is a cumulative effect of local government reforms that places pressure on councils. However, there is a definite benefit in moving with some pace and removing what has been ongoing uncertainty within the sector. The Council supports replacement arrangements developed with some pace with subsequent implement proceeding in parallel with other reform initiatives where it is practical and efficient to do so.

· The Council believes that the Government should go further in specifying its envisaged local government system, at least at a high level, to reduce duplication of effort and improve efficiency in developing approved regional solutions.

· Resourcing will be essential to support mayors, the Local Government Commission, and the transition for each region. The Council recommends that funding for additional resourcing in these areas is included within the final proposal.

· The Council proposes an alternative staged approach to implementation of this draft proposal, to mitigate capacity risks and enable input from regional councillors. The Council proposes that the CTB of city and district mayors for the region is established to focus primarily on developing a way forward for local government through the RRP. During this two-year period, regional councillors would continue to govern the day-to-day business of regional councils, with triggers put in place for bigger issues requiring escalation to the CTB.

14. The turnaround time for submissions to the proposal has been shortened by the Christmas / New Year break, which has made it difficult to seek and incorporate feedback from local Iwi/Hapū through Te Rangapū o Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana within this timeframe.

Statutory Context

15. The Government’s draft proposal on Simplifying Local Government has the potential to significantly change the current local government system in New Zealand, resulting in changes to legislation that fundamentally affects all councils and communities.

16. Taken together with other local government reforms, both underway and proposed, this proposal signals fundamental change to New Zealand’s local governance and local government.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

18. The aims of the proposal seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government, and provide better value for money for local communities. If given effect, these aims would primarily contribute to the council’s environmental and urban form and transport outcomes.

19. The Council’s draft submission seeks to improve the proposal to provide a greater chance that it would achieve these aims.

Options Analysis

20. The Council has three options available to it:

· Approve the submission as written and submit to the Department of Internal Affairs by 20 February 2026

· Amend the submission and submit to the Department of Internal Affairs by 20 February 2026

· Do not make a submission on the proposal.

21. Making a submission ensures that the Council’s thoughts and opinions on the proposal are clearly communicated to the Government for its consideration.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

22. Given the timeframes for this consultative process, the Council has not sought input or advice from Te Rangapū o Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana

CLIMATE IMPACT

23. If the aims of this proposal are achieved, there is likely to be benefit through better coordinated local government research and responses to the impacts of climate change.

Significance

24. 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.

25. 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 issue.

26. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that issue of simplifying local government and this proposal is of high significance, but that the decision to approve a submission on the issue to the Government is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

27. 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

28. Once direction is received from Council, the submission will be finalised and lodged with the Department of Internal Affairs by the deadline of 20 February 2026.

29. The Government has signalled that a final proposal should be released in March 2026. The Council may wish to provide feedback on the final proposal should that be an option.

Attachments

1. Draft submission to DIA on draft proposal for simplifying local government - A19688944 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

10 February 2026

11.5 User Fees and Charges Review - Issues and Options

File Number: A19438140

Author: Holly Riddell, Corporate Planner

Emma Cooper, Business Analyst & Partner

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

Purpose of the Report

1. This report presents options to include within the draft 2026/27 User Fees and Charges Schedule. It also provides an option to defer the next stages of the user fees and charges review to the long-term plan process commencing later this calendar year.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "User Fees and Charges Review - Issues and Options".

EITHER:

(b) Approves the following options from each attachment to be included in the draft User Fees and Charges 2026/27:

Baycourt (Attachment 1)

(i) Option 1: Retain status quo (existing 50% discount on venue hire fees for eligible community events).

Libraries (Attachment 2)
Room hire:

(ii) Option 1: Market comparable commercial hire fees for venue with a 50% discount for eligible community uses.

Fees for book lending:

(iii) Option 1: Increase the borrowing fee for Top Title adult fiction and nonfiction from $3.00 to $4.00.

Active Reserves (Attachment 3)

(iv) Option 1: Charge all junior training and matches at $4 an hour or match, with seniors at $8 an hour or match.

Use of Council Land (Attachment 4)

(v) Option 1: Retain the status quo and review again through LTP 2027-37, informed by revised land valuation.

Cemetery Parks and Crematorium (Attachment 5)

(vi) Option 3: Increases over the next two years to achieve fees reflective of actual cost.

Boat Ramp Parking (Attachment 6)

(vii) Option 1: Reintroduce trailer parking fees adjacent to the deepwater boat ramps at $7 a day, $70 a year for residents and $100 a year for non-residents, with exemptions for community organisations.

Alcohol Licensing (Attachment 7)

(viii) Option 4: Increase the current fees to reflect a 30% rates / 70% user funded model.

Animal Services (Attachment 8)

(ix) Option 1: Increase Animal Service fees and reduce dog registration fee by $6.

Building Services (Attachment 9)

(x) Option 2: Increase fees 10% plus CPI.

Trade Waste (Attachment 10)

(xi) Option 1: Align fee structure with changes proposed in bylaw include proposed fee structure.

AND/OR

(c) Notes the work done to date on the user fees and charges review by staff and elected members and agrees to defer further progress on all aspects of the review (or ‘all other aspects of the review’, if any decisions are made under (b)(i) to (b)(xi) above) until the long-term plan process which will be progressed during 2026.

Executive Summary

2. Council staff are undertaking a comprehensive review of user fees and charges for the 2026/27 financial year, following community consultation that committed Council to undertaking this work.

3. The review is guided by the principles of the Revenue and Financing Policy, aiming to ensure fees are fair, equitable, simple to administer, consistent across Council, and reflective of asset value and investment. A core objective is to reduce reliance on general rates by applying a ‘user pays’ approach wherever a service user can be identified and efficiently charged.

4. Staff assessed all fees and charges activity areas to identify those with the greatest potential for improved cost recovery or financial impact. Council subsequently approved^{^[6]} in-depth reviews of nine activity areas: Baycourt, Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Use of Council Land, Cemetery Parks and Crematorium, Alcohol Licensing, Animal Services, Building Services, and Trade Waste. Each detailed review included analysis of cost recovery, historical consultation feedback, service usage, inflation and affordability impacts, market context, and benchmarking against other councils.

5. In addition to these in-depth reviews, staff have completed the standard annual review of all other fees and charges, including proposed new fees. These, along with decisions from this report, will inform a draft User Fees and Charges Schedule and will be reflected in revenue and rates budgets for the draft Annual Plan to be presented to Council on 3 March 2026.

6. Feedback from Elected Members throughout the workshop process has shaped the options presented within the attachments to this report.

7. Recognising that Council is looking to re-prioritise its work programme, a further option has been provided that allows for a temporary pause to the user fees and charges review, with the project being picked up as part of the long-term plan process.

8. A hybrid option is also presented where Council could proceed with an incremental increase of some fees (above inflation) with consideration of any subsequent more significant increases through the LTP. Depending on the scale of these increases’ consultation may or may not be required.

Background

9. User fees and charges are updated by staff on an annual basis with a comprehensive review typically undertaken during the development of the Long-term Plan. Following consultation on the 2025/26 Annual Plan, it was resolved that Council would conduct a comprehensive review during the 2026/27 annual plan process.

10. Council’s general approach is to reduce the burden on the ratepayer by utilising a ‘user pays’ approach. Therefore, where a service user can be identified, and efficiently charged, users will pay for that service through a user fee or charge. This approach requires a greater percentage of the costs of an activity to be recovered from service users.

11. The comprehensive review has been guided by principles in the Revenue and Financing Policy; ensuring fees are fair and equitable, consistent across Council, simple to administer and understand, and reflective of both capital investment and the value of assets and the environment. It also aims to capture non-ratepayer users of Council amenities and enable demand management.

12. Staff undertook a review of all fee and charges activity areas to identify areas that present a strong case for an in-depth review due to financial significance or known opportunities for greater cost recovery. These are areas where staff attention was most likely to result in meaningful improvements.

13. The following activities were approved by Council at a formal Council meeting on the 16 September 2025 for an in-depth review, with subsequent public workshops^{^[7]} to share staff analysis and potential options:

· Baycourt

· Libraries

· Parks and Recreation

· Use of Council Land

· Cemetery Parks and Crematorium

· Alcohol Licensing

· Animal Servies

· Building Services

· Trade Waste

14. In addition to these detailed reviews, staff have undertaken the standard annual review of all other fees and charges, including the addition of new fees. These proposed changes and the decisions from this report will be included in a draft User Fees and Charges Schedule and is intended to be presented to Council on the 3 March 2026.

15. Each review of the activities above has involved a thorough assessment, including analysis of current cost recovery levels, consideration of community feedback from previous consultations, identification of known issues and opportunities, inflation and affordability impacts, market trends and service usage, and benchmarking against other councils.

16. This information has been prepared in an issues and options report for each of the activities and is attached to this report.

17. For fees where no other adjustments are to be made, a 3% increase will be applied in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This figure is based on the most recent CPI data published by Stats NZ (October 2025). The same 3% CPI adjustment has also been incorporated into the financial modelling within the attached Issues and Options reports. Applying CPI ensures that fees reflect inflationary cost pressures and maintain cost recovery without shifting the burden to rates.

18. Feedback provided by Elected Members at the workshops to date, have informed the options provided within this report.

19. Subsequent to the workshops a request was made by Elected Members to provide information on the rates / user fee % mix for activities and presenting this by grouping similar activities showing the range that currently applies, and the range aligned to the emerging direction per the work completed to date. There was insufficient time for staff to complete this work prior to finalising this report. If elected members choose the option to defer the project to the LTP process, then that information will be able to be collated and reported.

Option to pause the review project and progress through LTP process

20. Staff recognise that Council is looking to reprioritise its work programme. Notwithstanding paragraphs 8 to 17 above and the attachments to this report, the user fees and charges review is a discretionary project that can be temporarily paused if Council so determines.

21. If the project is temporarily paused, it can be picked up as part of the long-term plan process that will start shortly. This approach would allow further time to more closely consider the level of user fees and charges across similar activities in a manner which fits with Council’s desire to create as much consistency of approach as possible.

22. If the project is temporarily paused the ‘standard’ updates to user fees and the introduction of select new charges, as described in paragraph 13, will continue. The draft user fees and charges schedule for 2026/27 will be presented to the 3 March 2026 Council meeting for consideration.

Hybrid Option – Incremental increase of some fees (above inflation) with consideration of any subsequent more significant increases through the LTP.

23. Council could increase some fees in an incremental manner which are in the direction of the desired long-term approach. Then Council could consider the specific scale and structure of that longer term approach through the LTP process.

24. This would enable the Council to start to adjust in areas where a change via the LTP is likely, without having to have a full view as to what the final position on the charging arrangement will be.

25. In terms of consultation, as a guide, if the incremental increase is circa less than inflation plus 3%, then consultation is not likely to be required. Each fee would need to be considered in terms of the actual $ increase and other matters, but this guide may be helpful as a starting point when determining if consultation is required.

Statutory Context

26. Setting fees and charges at the correct level enables the funding of council’s activities. These activities help deliver our community outcomes and facilitate improved quality of life, quality of economy and sound city foundations.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

27. 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	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	ü

28. This review supports all strategic community outcomes by ensuring fees are fair, transparent, and aligned with the financially sustainable delivery of Council services that benefit the community.

Financial Considerations

29. The decisions within this report and attachments have financial implications for the Annual Plan 2026/27. In addition to revenue impacts, the proposed changes aim to improve cost recovery for services, ensuring that fees are fair, transparent, and aligned with Council’s financial principles. Consideration has been given to affordability, inflationary pressures, and market comparisons to maintain a balance between financial sustainability and community accessibility to services.

30. Detailed financial analysis for each activity and option is provided in the attachments to this report.

Legal Implications / Risks

31. The proposed changes to the User Fees and Charges Schedule must comply with the Local Government Act 2002 and any other legislation relevant to specific fees. Council is required to ensure that all fees are lawful, transparent, consistent with its Revenue and Financing Policy, and do not exceed reasonable cost recovery.

32. Significant increases in fees carry the risk of negative community perception and may result in reduced service uptake.

Consultation / Engagement

33. The proposed 2026/27 User Fees and Charges Schedule will be subject to public consultation in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. This process ensures transparency and provides the community with an opportunity to give feedback on the proposed changes before they are adopted.

34. If required, consultation will be undertaken as part of the Annual Plan process. Key steps include:

· Public notification: The draft schedule will be published on Council’s website and made available at Council offices and libraries.

· Submission period: Community members will have the opportunity to make written submissions during the consultation period.

· Engagement channels: Information will be shared through Council’s digital platforms, social media, and local media to encourage participation.

· Hearings and deliberations: Submitters who wish to speak to their submission will be heard by Council before final decisions are made.

· Decision and adoption: Feedback will be considered, and any changes will be incorporated before the final schedule is adopted.

35. Depending on the scale of change in the fee, consultation may not be required. Consultation on User Fees and Charges can occur on a stand alone basis, separate from an Annual Plan process.

Significance

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of high significance if there are significant changes to the current fees and charges proposed. If small to moderate changes, or Council decides to defer the matter to the long term plan, then the significance is low.

ENGAGEMENT

39. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of high significance, officers are of the opinion that consultation is required under sections 82 and 150 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Next Steps

40. A proposed draft Fees and Charges Schedule, along with the consultation material, will be presented to Council on 3 March 2026 and will incorporate the decisions from this report.

41. A final proposed User Fees and Charges Schedule and, if required, consultation material will be adopted for consultation on 24 March 2026. Consultation, if required, will be undertaken with the community, with hearings (if required) and deliberations meetings to take place and a final adoption of the User Fees and Charges Schedule by the end of June 2026.

42. Finalised fees and charges will come into effect on 1 July 2026.

Attachments

1. Issues and Options - Baycourt - A19687260 ⇩

2. Issues and Options - Libraries & Community Hubs - A19687268 ⇩

3. Issues and Options - Active Reserves - A19687256 ⇩

4. Issues and Options - Use of Council Land - A19687271 ⇩

5. Issues and Options - Cemetery Parks and Crematorium - A19687266 ⇩

6. Issues and Options - Boat Ramp Parking - A19687264 ⇩

7. Issues and Options - Alcohol Licensing - A19687257 ⇩

8. Issues and Options - Animal Services - A19687258 ⇩

9. Issues and Options - Building Services - A19687265 ⇩

10. Issues and Options - Trade Waste - A19687269 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

10 February 2026

11.7 Bay of Plenty Mayoral Forum Triennial Agreement 2025-2028

File Number: A19693312

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

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek Council endorsement of the Bay of Plenty Mayoral Forum Triennial Agreement for the 2025-2028 triennium.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Bay of Plenty Mayoral Forum Triennial Agreement 2025-2028".

(b) Endorses the draft Bay of Plenty Mayoral Forum Triennial Agreement 2025-2028, included as Attachment 1.

(d) Authorises the Mayor to sign the Triennial Agreement on behalf of Tauranga City Council.

(e) Supports a review of the Triennial Agreement commencing no later than six months after it is signed to ensure that it remains relevant given ongoing government reforms of the local government sector, and requests that the Mayor formally communicate this to the other signatories.

Executive Summary

2. All councils in a region must enter into a Triennial Agreement.

3. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council has led a process to prepare a draft Triennial Agreement for the 2025 to 2028 triennium. The changes from the 2022-2025 Triennial Agreement are relatively minor.

4. There are no direct financial implications or specific risks in endorsing the draft Triennial Agreement.

5. If Council does not endorse the draft Triennial Agreement, the existing Triennial Agreement will remain in place and discussions with partner councils will need to continue until consensus is reached.

Background

6. The Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”) requires all local authorities within each region to enter into a Triennial Agreement by 1 March in the year following triennial elections. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council leads the process to facilitate this. A copy of the draft Triennial Agreement is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

7. Each Council in the Bay of Plenty region will separately consider whether to endorse the draft Triennial Agreement before 1 March 2026.

8. The last Triennial Agreement was approved by the Commission at its meeting of 7 February 2023 and was signed by the Commission Chair shortly afterwards.

Proposed changes

9. The draft 2025-2028 Triennial Agreement has the following changes from the signed 2022-2025 version:

(a) The statement of intent (section 2) has been amended to more closely reflect the soon-to-be-revised LGA. It now states that councils will ‘work collaboratively, and to maximise effectiveness and efficiency while delivering our core and statutory services and activities to our communities’.

The 2022-2025 version included working collaboratively and maximising effectiveness and efficiency, and also added ‘and to:

· Promote the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing of the Bay of Plenty communities now and in the future;

· Promote an agreed consultation process for preparation and review of the Regional Policy Statement.’

(b) Under general protocols (section 5), the first paragraph is new. It outlines the regional Mayoral Forum and introduces the Terms of Reference of that committee. A copy of those terms of reference are included as Attachment 2 to this report. As this is a formal committee of all member councils, consideration and endorsement of the Terms of Reference is recommended.

(c) Under policies and plans (section 8), the final two sentences are new. These simply recognise that the existing Protocol for Bay of Plenty RMA Policy and Plans, a regional council document, may need to be updated during the triennium in response to government reforms of the resource management system.

(d) Section 10, covering local government reform, is new.

Sector reform

10. The government is leading a large range of projects to implement reform on the local government sector. The sector’s understanding of the potential consequences of these reforms is evolving as the details of those reforms are being shared by the government.

11. To ensure the Triennial Agreement remains fit-for-purpose through the triennium, a formal review process could be initiated between Bay of Plenty councils. Such an approach is included in the options below and is recommended.

Statutory Context

12. Section 15 of the LGA requires local authorities in a region to adopt a Triennial Agreement that includes:

(a) protocols for communication and co-ordination among the local authorities

(b) the process by which the local authorities will consider proposals for new regional council activities

(c) processes and protocols through which all local authorities can participate in identifying, delivering, and funding facilities and services of significance to more than 1 district.

13. The proposed Triennial Agreement meets the requirements of the LGA.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

14. The Triennial Agreement could be considered to contribute to all of Council’s strategic community outcomes through strengthened collaboration and effectiveness.

15. Council’s Strategic Framework aligns its strategies and plans to its community outcomes, interwoven with our three Council approaches i.e., how we do things. This Triennial Agreement is consistent with the approach of Working Beyond Tauranga. Council commits to working collaboratively, building constructive partnerships with our key stakeholders and considering the impacts of what we do, and don’t do, on not just our city but also our region and country. We acknowledge our role as the largest city in the Bay of Plenty region and the connections we have beyond the city boundaries.

Options Analysis

16. In essence, Council has two main options: to endorse the draft Triennial Agreement and terms of reference, or to not. A third option is presented relating to a formal review process.

Option 1 – Endorse the draft Triennial Agreement and associated terms of reference (Recommended)

17. Council endorses the agreement.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Subject to other councils’ decisions, meets the statutory requirement for a Triennial Agreement to be in place by 1 March 2026.

· Tauranga City Council demonstrates its commitment to working efficiently and effectively with other local authorities in the Bay of Plenty region.

· Minor amendments from the last agreement are incorporated and become effective.

· Should changes be sought, Council would need to request a review of the Triennial Agreement and agreement of the other parties.

Option 2 – Propose amendments to the draft Triennial Agreement and associated terms of reference

18. Council do not endorse the agreement and instead proposes amendments.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Appropriate if the Council believes major amendments are needed to ensure that effective relationships are maintained with the other councils in the region.

· Any changes proposed will need to gain the agreement of the other councils in the region.

· This option is likely to miss the 1 March 2026 statutory requirement to have an agreement in place. However, the current agreement continues in place until a new one is approved by all councils.

Option 3 – Support a formal review of the Triennial Agreement within six months of adoption (also Recommended)

19. Under this option, Council approves (option 1) or amends (option 2) the draft agreement today but also seeks a formal review of it within six months.

20. Such a review would allow the partner councils to consider any further information about, and understanding of, the various government reforms of the local government sector that are underway, and to determine whether the Triennial Agreement as adopted remains fit-for-purpose or requires amendment.

21. At the first review, the councils and Mayoral Forum may decide to conduct regular reviews of the agreement as the triennium continues.

22. Section 15(4) of the LGA provides that “An agreement under this section may be varied by agreement between all the local authorities within the region.”

Advantages

Disadvantages

· If supported by the other councils, provides the councils and the Mayoral Forum a formal opportunity to revisit the Triennial Agreement on a timely basis.

· Ensures the Triennial Agreement remains fit-for-purpose through what is likely to be a triennium of significant change for the local government sector.

Financial Considerations

23. There are no direct financial consequences in entering into the Triennial Agreement.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

24. This is a procedural report. There are no direct implications to council’s te ao Māori approach.

CLIMATE IMPACT

25. This is a procedural report. There are no direct climate implications.

Significance

26. 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.

27. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

29. 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

30. If Council endorses the Triennial Agreement, this will be communicated to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the mayor’s electronic signature will be forwarded. If Council does not endorse the Triennial Agreement, then the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and all other councils in the region will be informed and a further process will be entered into to obtain regional consensus.

31. If Council approves recommended resolution (e), the Mayor will communicate Council’s decision to the Chair of Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the other mayors in the region.

Attachments

1. 2026-01-29 Draft Bay of Plenty Mayoral Forum Triennial Agreement 2025-2028 - A19693196 ⇩

2. 2026-01-29 Draft Terms of Reference - Bay of Plenty Mayoral Forum 2025-2028 - A19693220 ⇩

[1] ‘one water’ is used in this report to refer the adoption of an integrated approach towards stormwater, water supply and wastewater. It recognises that the terms wastewater, stormwater and water supply refer to different stages within a holistic water management cycle, but that water itself remains the overriding concept throughout.

[2] Land classified as reserve land under the Reserves Act 1977 would need to have its classification revoked before ownership could be transferred to a WO, and this is considered impractical. Therefore, ownership of reserve land will remain with Council, regardless of the approach taken towards other land parcels.

[3] The draft proposal and related information is available from the DIA website: https://www.dia.govt.nz/simplifying-local-government

[5] Internal Affairs letter to Local Government New Zealand, dated 3 December 2025

[7] 4 September 2025 (Sports Fields, Cemeteries, and Boat Ramp Parking)

9 October 2025 (Alcohol Licensing, Animal Services, and Libraries)

23 October 2025 (Baycourt)

30 October 2025 (Trade Waste, and Building Services)

27 November 2025 (Sports Fields, Use of Council Land, Cemeteries, and Boat Ramp Parking)


AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 10 February 2026
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 10 February 2026
Time:	9:30 am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Chambers, Mareanui L1, 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