Late Reports Agenda of Ordinary Council meeting

Ordinary Council meeting minutes

2 February 2026

DRAFT MINUTES

Emergency Council meeting

Monday, 2 February 2026

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Business. 4

3.1 Review Approach Following the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park Landslide– Decision on Preferred Option. 4

4 Closing karakia. 5

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

EMERGENCY Council meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council Chambers, L1, 90 Devonport Road, Tauranga

ON Monday, 2 February 2026 AT 11:30 am

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor, Cr Hēmi Rolleston
IN ATTENDANCE:	Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth), Andrew Hough (General Counsel), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor), Caroline Irvin (Governance Advisor),

A timestamp is included beside the item of business and relates to the recording of the emergency meeting held on 2 February 2026 on the Council's YouTube channel

1 Opening karakia

Cr Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Nil

Reflection and moment of silence

The Mayor acknowledged the tragic events that occurred on 21 and 22 January 2026. The Council’s thoughts remained with the families who suffered the unimaginable loss of their loved ones at the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park and in Pāpāmoa. These devastating events and loss of life have been felt deeply within the community, across the country and around the world.

The Mayor offered his profound gratitude to the emergency workers and volunteers who worked tirelessly and with immense care to bring the families’ loved ones home. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor also noted its thanks to the Police Family Liaison team, tangata whenua, Civil Defence teams and Council staff.

As a sign of respect Council stood for a moment of silence in honour of the loved ones who tragically died, their whanau, family and friends.

3 Business

Timestamp: 14 minutes

3.1 Review Approach Following the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park Landslide– Decision on Preferred Option

Staff Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

At 12.16pm the meeting adjourned.

At 12.33pm the meeting resumed.

Motion

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Review Approach Following the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park Landslide – Decision on Preferred Option".

(b) Strongly supports an independent Crown inquiry, and any other investigation or inquiry by Crown agencies into the landslide at the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park in which six lives were tragically lost.

(c) Selects the preferred approach for undertaking Council’s organisational review into the systems, processes, and decision-making leading up to the landslide at the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park on 22 January 2026, being an External Review.

(d) Authorises the Mayor to approve the Terms of Reference, appoint the external reviewer, and confirm the review timeframes and associated costs once scoping is complete.

(e) Instructs the CEO to provide all information requested by the external reviewer and any other investigation/inquiry in a timely manner and ensure that direction is also given to his team.

AN AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

That the Council:

Amend recommendation (d) to read:

· That the Council approve the Terms of Reference, appoint the external reviewer, and confirm the review timeframes and associated costs once scoping is complete.

For: Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Against: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Abstain: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

LOST 3/6

The Recommendations were taken in parts:

Resolution CO/26/1/1

Part 1

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Review Approach Following the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park Landslide– Decision on Preferred Option".

(e) Instructs the CEO to provide all information requested by the external reviewer and any other investigation/inquiry in a timely manner and ensure that direction is also given to his team.

Carried

Resolution CO/26/1/2

Part 2

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(d) Authorises the Mayor to approve the Terms of Reference, appoint the external reviewer, and confirm the review timeframes and associated costs once scoping is complete.

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

Against: Cr Glen Crowther

Carried 9/1

4 Closing karakia

Cr Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 1.18 pm.

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

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

10 February 2026

11 Business

11.7 Miro Street Parking Improvements

File Number: A19489166

Author: Kurt Graham, Project Manager

Shawn Geard, Manager: Transport System Operations

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide council with the background of the Miro Street Parking Improvements project and seek a decision from council on the solution to be progressed.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Miro Street Parking Improvements".

(b) That council endorses converting Miro Street (between Matai Street and Hinau Street) to a One-Way-Street with angled parking to improve parking for residents of Miro Street at the cost of up to $315,000.

(c) That council construct a footpath on the eastern side of Miro Street between Matai Street and Hinau Street to both improve accessibility for the angled carparking and also to mitigate any continued berm parking issues – without formally banning berm parking at this time at the cost of up to $150,000.

(d) That the potential expansion of the one-way system to northern section of Miro Street and Tawa Street is planned as a future stage in the next LTP.

(e) That the estimated saving against budget of $735,000, is re-prioritised to deliver rapidly deployable projects, in accordance with City Delivery Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/7 (recommendation (e) of the report “Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status” from 15 December 2025).

Executive Summary

2. Miro Street is experiencing significant parking pressure due to residential intensification, nearby businesses, and Blake Park sporting facilities. The Miro Street community has notified council of the issues and requested improvements. Parking surveys undertaken by staff confirmed that parking demand exceeds capacity, particularly between Matai Street and Hinau Street, where berm parking is common and creates safety and amenity issues.

3. This has resulted in frequent berm parking, reduced pedestrian safety and poor connectivity as well as damage to berms and visibility issues at property access points.

4. As a result, Tauranga City Council staff considered options to provide better parking for residents of Miro Street. It is believed the most cost-effective way to achieve this is by introducing a one-way traffic system on Miro Street between Matai Street and Hinau Street with angled car parking spaces.

5. This approach is expected to add 2 new parking spaces to Miro St while a further 10 new parking spaces will be constructed with a recessed parking bay on Matai St. The expected cost is estimated at $315,000. This includes $50,000 of contingency due to the early stage of design. Approximately half of the estimated construction cost is attributed to the recessed parking bay on Matai Street while the remainder is associated with the conversion of Miro Street to a one-way street.

6. The construction of a footpath on the eastern side of Miro Street is also recommended and would alleviate the berm parking issues – without formally banning berm parking. The estimated cost of the footpath is $150,000, including contingency, if included in the scope.

7. Two alternative options to maintain two-way flow and constructing recessed angled parking on were also considered. The options and costs are summarised in the table below.

Option	No. of additional parking spaces (on street)	Estimated Cost	Cost per additional parking space
One-way Miro Street (including recessed bay on Matai Street) - RECOMENDED	22	$315,000	$14,318
Hybrid (two-way with some recessed parking)	24	$520,000	$21,667
Two-way recessed parking	40	$1,150,000	$28,750
Addition - Footpath on eastern side of Miro Street - RECOMENDED	Removal of approximately 12 berm space)	$150,000	-

8. Community Engagement has been undertaken to gauge community support for a one-way system on Miro Street. There was 69% support for the one-way proposal. Concerns raised during the engagement included; cost, insufficient parking making it a short-term solution, reversing and manoeuvring risks, while one resident was concerned, they would no longer be able to park their motor home on their property.

9. The main risk for the one-way option is legal risk of the bylaw change. This risk has been mitigated though consultation undertaken to date. For the two-way options - the main risks revolve around the presence of underground services at (currently) unknown depths which may require relocation.

10. If approved, the intention would be to align the works with a March / April 2026 reseal of Miro Street to minimise cost and disturbance to residents.

11. Proceeding with the recommendation will result in a saving of $735,000 compared to the budget allocated to this activity. As per the City Delivery Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/1 - recommendation (e) of the report “Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status” from 15 December 2025 - the remaining budget is intended to be re-prioritised to deliver rapidly deployable projects.

Background

12. Residential housing intensification in combination with neighbouring businesses and Blake Park sporting facilities, have increased the parking demands on Miro Street. Parking demand outweighs capacity, with parking on berms the norm. There are reports of reduced amenity, poor pedestrian connections, poor visibility from access points and damage to berms.

13. Three parking surveys were conducted at various times of the day and week. This found that the most impacted section of Miro Street is the section between Matai Street and Hinau Street where on each occasion 12 to 18 vehicles were observed parking on the berm. Nights appear to have the highest demand for parking, with all 37 on road parking spaces in use and 18 vehicles parked on the berm at 8:30pm on Thursday 31 July.

14. As a result of the observations and complaints, Tauranga City Council staff considered options to provide better parking for residents of Miro Street. It is believed the most cost-effective way to achieve this is by introducing a one-way traffic system with angled car parking spaces, without adjusting kerbs or drainage on Miro Street.

15. Staff with support from elected members have undertaken engagement with the residents, businesses and sporting clubs in the area, to understand if a one-way system between Matai Street and Hinau Street would be supported. The engagement also sought to understand if this solution should be applied to the neighbouring streets and if residents were wanting council to formally prohibit berm parking in the area.

16. This section of Miro Street is currently planned for reseal in March 2026. This timing provides good opportunity to complete the works without the need to black-out or remove old line marking, which results in “ghosting” where the old markings are still visible, particularly under headlights – though black

Statutory Context

17. A bylaw change would be required to adopt the one-way solution.

18. A bylaw would also be required if council elected to ban berm parking in the area.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	☐
We value, protect and enhance the environment	☐
We are a well-planned city that is easy to move around	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	☐
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	☐

20. The preferred solution aligns well with the Value for Money approach as it seeks to make the most of existing infrastructure, using what is largely existing road and kerb-lines, with a new layout to enhance parking for the benefit of Miro Street residents.

Options Analysis

21. Two main options were considered to improve Miro Street between Matai Street and Hinau Street

i. A one-way system to accommodate angled parking in combination with a recessed car parking bay on Hinau Street (Image 1 below). This option would provide 12 additional spaces on Matai Street and 10 additional spaces on Miro Street. This is considered the minimum viable product

i. Estimated cost: $315,000

ii. Number of additional car parks: 22

iii. Cost per car park: $14,318

A map of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Picture 1: Proposed one-way system on Miro Street

ii. Road widening to accommodate angled parking along the length of the Street (Picture 2 below)

i. Road widening to accommodate angled parking along the eastern side of Miro Street and retain parallel parks on the western side (Picture 2 below)

ii. Estimated cost: $1,150,000

iii. Number of additional car parks: 40

iv. Cost per additional car park: $28,750

Picture 2: Alternative option to improve parking while maintaining two-way traffic

22. During consultation a member of the community also requested that council consider a hybrid solution with two smaller recessed parking bays on Miro Street and maintaining two-way flow. This option was investigated by staff but found to be approximately $205,000 more in project costs (a large portion of this being provision for underground utility work required due to expected utility locations in the berm) while providing only two additional car parks, when compared to the one-way option.

23. There is also the option to include a footpath on the Northern side of Miro St. This is estimated to cost an additional $150,000, while removing approximately 12 potential ‘parking spaces’ from the berm. This roughly halves the estimated current potential berm parking locations without the need for bylaws to ban berm parking.

24. If the one-way solution is progressed, there is also the option to expand the one-way solution to include the northern sections of Miro Street and Tawa Street between Matai Street and Puriri Street. This provides an additional 18 car parks on Miro Street and 20 additional spaces on Tawa St. Parking surveys on these streets suggest there is sufficient on street parking at night and that additional spaces would be largely utilised during sporting events and by businesses during work hours.

25. Other additions to the minimum viable product include banning berm parking and construction of a footpath on the eastern side of Miro Street (between Hinau Street and Matai St) and Matai Street (between Miro Street and Maunganui Road).

26. Some feedback centred on banning berm parking, this would impact approx. 20 vehicles regularly parked on the berm - albeit with 22 new on-street spaces provided.

Financial Considerations

27. The preferred option is both the lowest cost over all and the lowest cost per additional car park provided. A budget of $1,200,000 has been allowed for in the current annual plan. The recommended option would provide significant savings on the allocated budget.

28. The remaining budget is intended to be re-prioritised to deliver rapidly deployable projects, as per the City Delivery Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/2 - recommendation (e) of the report “Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status” from 15 December 2025.

Legal Implications / Risks

29. Converting a two‑way street to a one‑way configuration engages statutory requirements under the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport Rule: Street Layouts 2023. As the road controlling authority, Council has the power to change the use and layout of the roadway, including implementing a one‑way traffic system, and must have regard to road safety, emergency and service vehicle access, freight and public transport movements, and the effects on pedestrians, cyclists, adjoining landowners, and other affected road users.

30. Public engagement requirements are guided by Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy under the Local Government Act 2002. While changes to traffic direction and on‑street parking are ordinarily implemented by traffic resolution rather than bylaw and do not generally require a formal Special Consultative Procedure, consultation must be proportionate to the scale and impact of the proposal. Targeted engagement with affected residents, businesses, and service providers reduces procedural and reputational risk. The consultation undertaken to date fulfils these requirements.

31. Potential legal exposure may also arise in relation to property access and amenity. Although there is no general right to a particular traffic arrangement, materially increased circuity or functional constraints on vehicle access may give rise to objection or challenge if such effects are not appropriately identified, assessed, and considered as part of the decision‑making process.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

32. Kaitiakitanga – Stewardship of the Natural Environment – the proposed design minimises the resource requirements and impact on the environment by utilising the existing road and kerbs as much as possible – optimising the existing infrastructure.

CLIMATE IMPACT

33. The recommended solution has minimal environmental impact. The solution maximises the use of existing infrastructure, minimising use of construction resources. The potential addition of a footpath would encourage active transport modes, thereby lowering vehicle emissions and supporting sustainable urban mobility.

Consultation / Engagement

34. Community engagement for the one-way system was undertaken between 3 November and 28 November 2025. The full consultation report is attached. In summary consultation was targeted towards, residents, businesses and sports clubs in the area and the engagement consisted of:

i. Media Release: The media release was picked up by SunLive and Scoop.

ii. Web Page: A project web page on our Let’s Talk engagement website with information about the proposed improvements including maps, FAQs, and a link to the survey.

iii. Posters: posters in the Mount Maunganui Library as well as providing them to eight businesses in the area to put up.

iv. Letters to stakeholders including residents, businesses and clubs: posted to owners who lived elsewhere (approx. 58 owners) and posted the letter to those in the wider proposed area including Tawa, Matai and Puriri Streets plus a few along Maunganui Road (approx. 400 owners and occupiers). The letter included a link to the web page/survey, a QR code for easy webpage and survey access, and details of the engagement sessions. We also door-knocked businesses in the immediate and wider area (approx. 35 businesses) and gave them a copy of the letter, including eight who also took the A3 poster to put up in their business.

v. Door knocking: for immediately affected properties on Miro Street and parts of Matai Street (approx. 120 properties).

vi. Community engagement sessions: Two community engagement sessions were held to answer any questions people had on how the one-way system would work and for people to suggest any alternative ideas.

vii. Online survey: The survey was open between 3 November and 28 November 2025 and received 61 responses. We asked:

· How do you interact with or use the Miro Street area?

· Where on Miro Street do you live?

· How often do you travel to the area?

· Would you support changing Miro Street to one-way (between Matai Street and Hinau Street) and why?

· Have we got the direction right and why?

· Would you support a berm parking ban in the area and why?

· Is there anything we have missed/overall feedback?

· Would you support changing Miro Street to one-way (between Matai Street and Puriri Street) and why?

· Would you support changing Tawa Street to one-way (between Matai Street and Puriri) and why?

· Any other feedback on improving parking in the wider area? Online advertisement and information

viii. Other stakeholder engagement: An email was sent to Blake Park user groups (30 stakeholders) and emergency services (St John, Police and Fire and Emergency) with information on the proposed changes, a link to the survey, and details of the two engagement sessions.

35. The survey results showed good support for a one-way system on Miro Street between Matai and Hinau. 69% of survey respondents strongly support or support changing Miro Street to one-way (between Matai Street and Hinau Street) whereas 31% oppose or strongly oppose these changes. The image below:

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Picture 3: Summary of support & opposition to the proposed one-way system on Miro Street

36. Of those that opposed the proposal common themes were:

i. Cost concerns

ii. Short term solution / insufficient to solve event or sporting parking issues.

iii. Increased reversing movements with angled parking - higher crash risk

iv. Visibility issues with more angled parking

v. Poor suitability for larger vehicles (vans, trades).

vi. No dedicated cycle lanes; cyclists may use footpaths → pedestrian and mobility users’ risk.

vii. Criticism for the city centre one-way system

viii. Noise, fumes, and lights from more cars near homes.

ix. Overdevelopment and housing consents without garages.

x. Alternative solutions were also suggested:

· Build a large carpark (e.g., Hinau Street, 250 spaces).

· Use sports ground land for event parking.

· Install barriers/rocks to prevent berm parking.

· Improve Zespri’s private parking provision.

· Recessed parking and maintaining two-way flow

37. One of the residents of Miro Street who opposed the proposal was particularly concerned with how the proposal would impact their ability to park their motor home as well as the additional travel distance the one-way system would create. The proposal would mean the resident will need to reverse into the area they currently park. The resident feels that their wing mirrors may protrude into the footpath if reversed in.

38. At the engagement events there were mixed opinions. The event on 12 November attracted ten attendees of which nine were Miro Street residents. There was majority support for the one-way system, with two residents of Miro Street opposed, while remaining seven were in support. A resident from Maunganui Road voiced wider concerns about parking, traffic and rubbish in the area. A show of hands at the event, had six of ten attendees request a footpath on the eastern side of the road from residents.

39. The engagement event on 14 November had one new attendee from Miro Street who was in favour of the changes and one returning resident who was opposed due to issues parking their motor home. Four people from surrounding streets also attended. They were generally opposed to the changes but more interested in wider issues. Their main concerns were – creating a circuit increasing traffic on Maunganui Road and issues with speed on Hinau street.

40. Other takeaways from the proposal included roughly even numbers for and against expanding the one-way system to the northern section of Miro and Tawa Street. There was also good support for banning berm parking (65% support). See images 3, 4 and 5 below.

A screenshot of a graph

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Picture 4: Engagement results for one way on Miro Street between Matai Street and Puriri Street

A screenshot of a graph

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Picture 5: Engagement results for one way on Tawa Street between Matai Street and Puriri Street

A screenshot of a graph

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Picture 6: Engagement results for banning berm parking

Significance

41. 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.

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

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

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

45. Miro street is planned to be resealed in March 2026. If the recommended solution is progressed, the current plan is to notify the community of the outcomes of the survey and council decision. Construction works would then be aligned with the planned reseal, minimising cost and disruption.

Attachments

1. Miro Street Parking Improvements Drawing - A19643961 ⇩

2. Miro Street Engagement Summary Report - A19643966 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

10 February 2026

11.1 Draft Annual Plan 2026/27

File Number: A19671925

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

Kathryn Sharplin, Head of Finance

Tracey Hughes, Manager: Organisational Financial Performance and Corporate Planning

Authoriser: Craig Rice, Chief Operating and Financial Officer

Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.

Public Excluded Attachment

Reason why Public Excluded

Item 11.1 - Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 - Attachment 2 - Confidential - Opex Reduction Opportunities

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.

Item 11.1 - Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 - Attachment 3 - Confidential -LoS savings opportunities tables (with extra column) for elected members

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek further direction on a number of matters relating to the draft Annual Plan 2026/27.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Annual Plan 2026/27".

(b) Agrees to maintain water supply activity revenue increases broadly in line with those projected in the Water Services Delivery Plan which overall is an increase of 25.6% including both fixed and volumetric water charges.

(c) Notes the maximum limit on rates increase for Year 3 of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan (LTP) was 12% net of growth and the rates increase net of growth for 2027 was 10.4%.

(d) Confirms the following adjustments to December draft budgets to reduce rates requirement by $8.3M to give a total rate increase for the year including water supply charges of 10.8% after growth and excluding water supply fixed and variable charges of 8.9%.

(i) Reduction in the capital programme including contingency management, clarification of deliverability and timing and removing placeholder funding budgets of $58M to reduce operational costs (primarily interest) of $1M.

(ii) A reduction in operational expenditure from Attachment 1 and Confidential Attachment 2 of $2.6M.

(iii) Additional savings target across the organisation of $1.6M, noting the details of this are to be found by the executive prior to the final budget.

(iv) Reductions in charges under the waste collection rate of $1.3M of revenue to reflect budgeted costs of delivering this service.

(v) Reduction in revenue from the stormwater targeted rate levy of $0.5M.

(vi) Increase in user fee revenue by $0.3M from applying 3% inflation rather than 2.3% annual inflation that was assumed in the draft budget.

(vii) Moving budgeted capital expenditure of approximately $45M, from Attachment 4 capital prioritisation list, to a bring forward list for projects to be commenced as savings are achieved on budgeted projects, reducing rates requirement by $1.2M.

(e) Notes there are potential additional savings for next year’s rates as a result of lower capital delivery in 2025/26 leading to lower debt. This depends on the level of carry forward budget approved with potential savings of $1 to $2m in interest costs for 2026/27.

(f) Agrees the following areas of service provision that council would consider for expenditure reduction to achieve rates saving, noting an overall reduction in rates funded expenditure of $2.4 to 3.4m would be required to achieve a rates increase of 7.5%, from the options provided in Confidential Attachment 3:

(i) (to be completed by elected members)

(g) Requests details of the budget adjustments required by resolution in (e) be provided at the 3 March Council meeting for final decision-making.

(h) Notes the high-level indication of rates increases for the residential, commercial and industrial rating categories ranges between 7.2% and 7.4% for the median property value of each category and that the largest increase of 8% occurs for the high value residential properties (99^th percentile). These indicative increases are based on existing rating differentials for each category of ratepayer using a 7.5% overall rates increase as included in Attachment 5.

Consultation

(i) Adopts “Option 1: Do not consult” approach to consultation for the Annual Plan 2025/26, assuming level of service changes contemplated by resolution (e) are not significant in terms of the Local Government Act 2002

(j) If council decides to undertake consultation (Option 2), then also:

(i) Confirms that an independent survey will be undertaken again by direct appointment of the same supplier as the Annual Plan 2025/26 with 250 respondents and a margin of error rate of +/-6% at 95% confidence level.

(ii) Confirms the approach to hearings for the Annual Plan 2026/27 will be traditional hearings.

(iii) Confirms the approach to submission responses for the Annual Plan 2026/27 will be Option 2, a new and more efficient approach to submission responses by only responding to submitters with generic responses to point them to documents that highlight the key decisions made in the Annual Plan 2026/27.

(k) Attachments 2 and 3 can be transferred into the open once the Annual Plan has been adopted.

Executive Summary

2. The draft budget was presented to council on 16 December 2025. Decisions made at that meeting were to provide expenditure reductions or revenue changes to achieve a rate increase of 7.5% after growth and to identify areas of saving that would be required to support lower increases down to 4%.

3. This report provides options for council decision to move toward the 7.5% preferred rates increase. Expenditure reductions are proposed in internal costs, external services and the timing and management of costs of the capital programme.

4. The analysis of options to be confirmed by Council is summarised in Table 1 of this report. The detail of options for Council consideration of capital prioritisation and level of service reductions is included in Attachments 1 to 4 of this report.

5. On 16 December council agreed to consider this increase separate from water by meter charges which are billed separately. The water invoices sent to customers include both the connection charges and the volume-based charge. Both these charges are excluded in the options analysis to reach 7.5% rate increase shown in Table 1. It is noted the water supply activity showed significant increases in fixed and variable water charges in the water service delivery plan (WSDP) approved by the Department of Internal Affairs.

6. The reduction in the budgeted capital programme for the 2026/27 Annual Plan would be from $497M to approximately $400m. This is partly achieved ($58M) by a review of contingency, a tighter process for allocation of contingency expenditure in the year, and a review of project timing to reflect updated expectations of delivery. The remaining reduction in budget is proposed to be achieved by establishing a prioritised programme with lower priority projects not budgeted but instead included in a bring forward list if the budgeted programme is delivered for less.

7. Following the council meeting on 10 December 2025 regarding consultation and engagement on the Annual Plan, the Elected Member Working Group reviewed the Annual Plan process and requested staff to present options for consultation, engagement, hearings, and submission response methods for the 2026/27 Annual Plan. The key context is the council’s resolution to consider a 7.5% rates increase, with staff anticipating that there are no significant or material changes from year three of the Long-Term Plan (LTP) to trigger mandatory consultation under the Local Government Act.

8. The key decision on consultation to be made by Council at this meeting is whether to consult on the Annual Plan, given minimal changes from the LTP. If consultation proceeds the preferred approach will also require further decisions outlined in this report.

Background

9. The development of the Annual Plan 2026/27 continues following presentation of the first draft on 16 December which showed a 13% rate increase after growth of 0.5%.

10. At this meeting Council resolved to:

(a) Consider further options for rates reduction at the council meeting on 10 February 2026 to achieve a rates requirement of 7.5%, and options to reduce the rates increase further to 4%.

(b) Separate water by meter charges, which have significantly increased, from the target 7.5% increase calculation.

11. Options identified in the 16 December report included:

(i) Prioritisation of reducing the capital programme by $100m including tighter management of contingency and deliverability as well as deferral of some projects with a bring forward option if savings are found within the remaining budget.

(ii) Further reduction in operating expenditure including consideration of level of service reductions

i. Options for user fee increases to offset rates requirement

ii. Separation of the volumetric water charge from consideration of rates increases as this charge relates to supply of a specific service and is billed separately from the rates bill.

12. The summarised table of options is shown as Table 1 in this report and an extended version of the table is included as Attachment 6.

13. Council also requested:

(a) an initial high-level indication of the impact on residential commercial and industrial ratepayers of a 7.5% after growth overall rates increase (Attachment 5)

(b) information on movements in FTE and salaries (Attachment 7)

(c) A separation of three waters activities revenue and expenses from whole of council revenue and expenses (Attachment 8)

(d) an update on the approach to the annual plan and consultation, which is discussed in this report.

Pathway to achieve a rates increase of 7.5% (excluding water charges)

14. The following table summarises the pathway to reach a rate increase for 2026/27 of 7.5%, excluding water charges. There are a number of measures and areas of the organisation’s expenditure and revenue to be considered to achieve the Council’s requested target. Each of these is discussed in order from the table below.

15. In the 16 December Council report it was proposed that Council consider this 7.5% target increase in rates separate from water by meter charges which are billed separately. The water invoices sent to customers include both the connection charges and the volume-based meter charge. Both these charges are excluded in the table below in the right-hand columns. It is noted the water supply activity showed significant increases in fixed and variable water charges in the water service delivery plan (WSDP) approved by the Department of Internal Affairs. Attachment 6 to this report shows a number of scenarios and the additional rates funded expenditure reductions required to achieve a 7.5% rate increase target.

Table 1 - Proposal to reduce rates increase to 7.5% after growth

Capital Reprioritisation

16. The December report identified a capital programme of $497M and a recommendation to reduce the budgeted capital programme to $400M.

17. Staff have re-budgeted a reduction of the capital programme budget by $58M to approximately $442M based on revised deliverability assessment along with changes to contingency budgeted in the year and a plan to manage contingency more actively across the programme.

18. To reduce the budget a further $42 to $45M a prioritisation assessment has been undertaken by staff based on the council’s community outcomes. Projects have been categorised as committed, renewals, critical risk projects and projects not yet committed. The projects that are not yet committed have been ranked by staff and presented in Attachment 4. From the lower ranked projects, agreement is sought from council to confirm which of these projects could be moved out of the 2026/27-year budget and placed on a bring forward list if savings are able to be found in other projects for the year. If they are not brought forward these projects would be included through next year’s Long-term Plan process.

19. The December draft excluded any reduction in opening debt for 2026/27 arising from lower than budgeted capital delivery in 2025/26. The expenditure for 2026 is currently forecast to be less than $420m ($80m less than budget). If all the unspent budget is carried forward to 2026/27 there will not be a significant saving in interest from the lower opening debt position. However, if it is not all carried forward the lower debt will continue through the 2026/27 year. A reduction in carry forward of $20m would flow through to interest savings for the year of approximately $1m. Interest savings from a reduction in carryforward would reduce the need for level of service savings.

Expenditure Reductions

20. Further expenditure reductions have been proposed for council endorsement in Attachment 1 and confidential Attachment 2. The green colour coded options in Table 1 above indicate areas of expenditure reduction affecting Council’s funding of its operations and support functions including some external providers. To achieve $5.2M of rates reduction across the green coded initiatives there is required to be a reduction in council operational expenditure of $8.1M.

21. The reduction in resourcing and other changes proposed carries with it a reduction in services and support to the organisation and the services it delivers. Reducing resources will impact on the quality of service and risk associated with council operations. The efficiency review line item represents an undertaking by the executive to pursue further efficiency savings and expenditure reduction. For the draft budget to be presented in March this line item of savings will be included as a salary savings target within the operating expenditure category, which the executive will aim to identify as actual budget adjustments prior to finalising the budget in June 2026.

Other Revenue and Expenditure Amendments Proposed

22. After further review of the draft budgets some changes are proposed to charges to the community through specific targeted rates and an overall inflation adjustment to user charges.

23. Kerbside Collection Charges (Targeted Rate)

Kerbside collection charges are calculated to cover the costs of kerbside collection. Based on costs to deliver the service it is proposed that the kerbside targeted rate be retained at 2025/26 levels reflecting that these are sufficient to cover the costs of this activity. Small surpluses have been recorded in recent years, and the Kerbside Targeted Rate reserve is currently in funds of $4.5M. This adjustment reduces the rates requirement by $1.3M.

24. Stormwater Levy (Targeted Rate)

After the 2011 flooding in parts of Tauranga a stormwater targeted rate was implemented to fund stormwater flooding mitigation works across the city. A policy was established to determine when the reserve could be applied to capital works. In recent years the qualifying capital works have reduced so that the reserve has accumulated funds of $14.5M. Over the last two years the levy has been reduced to $0.5M per annum, and it is proposed to continue this funding at the lower level for 2026/27 rather than the $1M budgeted in the draft creating a rates reduction of $0.5M.

25. User Fees and Charges inflation adjustment

The draft annual plan applied a general 2.3% inflation uplift to user fees and charges revenues. Recent inflation information has informed a higher adjustment of 3% which is to be proposed in the user fees and charges schedule. This adjustment to user fee revenue reduces rates requirement across activities of approximately $0.3M per annum.

Level of Service Adjustments to Reach a 7.5% rates increase

26. To reach the 7.5% rates target (water supply excluded), Council will be required to reduce or adjust service delivery to the community by up to $4.4m. The amount will depend on decisions on unspent capital budgets from 2025/26 (carryforwards), which could reduce the amount of savings to find by approximately $2m. Confidential Attachment 3 identifies areas of level of service that could be adjusted without significant impact on the community.

27. Council has been requested to indicate which areas of service delivery it would be willing to consider reducing or amending. The proposed changes are at a level that is unlikely to be significant and therefore require consultation under the Local Government Act 2002.

Rate Impact by Category of Ratepayer

28. Council requested an indication of rates increase for each quartile of each category of ratepayer (residential, commercial and industrial). This information is provided in Attachment 5 based on an indicative rates requirement targeting an overall 7.5% increase excluding water supply. From this the median residential and commercial ratepayers face an increase of 7.4%, while the industrial median ratepayer would have an increase of 7.2%. The highest increase would be 8% for the 99^th percentile residential properties.

Consultation and Engagement on the Annual Plan 2026/27

29. After the council meeting on 10 December the Annual Plan Elected Member Working Group met in December and subsequently fed back to staff a number of requests for items to consider in this report, Staff have prepared the following options for council’s consideration of:

· Whether or not to consult on the annual plan

· Approach to communications and engagement

· If a demographically representative survey should be used and what number of respondents and margin of error rate Elected Members are comfortable with

· Approach to hearings

· Approach to submission responses

Approach to consultation

30. The Local Government Act gives councils the opportunity to reduce costs in the preparation of its annual plan each year by electing whether to consult on that annual plan. The Act specifies that unless the differences from that year of the LTP are significant or material it need not to consult. However, council can still choose to consult if it wishes to.

31. Pursuant to the resolution from the 10 December 2025 meeting recommending consideration of a 7.5% rate increase at this meeting, subject to content decisions yet to be made by council, staff anticipate that there are no significant or material changes to year three of the Long-Term Plan (LTP). Accordingly, consultation would not be required unless council decides to proceed with consultation.

32. Staff are therefore seeking council’s direction in on the following options for consultation:

Option 1: Do not consult (Recommended)

33. Council does not consult on Annual Plan 2026/27

34. Key risk: council’s assessment of significance and/or materiality, and the resulting decision not to consult, is challenged via the annual report audit process and/or by the community.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Improved organisational capacity to focus on Long-term Plan 2027-2037 (LTP). · Reduced workload for elected members while dealing with the aftermath of the January weather event. · Reduced workload for corporate teams and activity and project managers, as there is no requirement to manage and respond to annual plan submissions. · Eliminates costs of annual plan consultation. · Reduced risk of community engagement fatigue.	· Reduced ability to bundle together issues for community engagement. · Risk of community criticism for a lack of consultation on the annual plan. · Loss of opportunity for community input into the annual plan.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Improved organisational capacity to focus on Long-term Plan 2027-2037 (LTP).

· Reduced workload for elected members while dealing with the aftermath of the January weather event.

· Reduced workload for corporate teams and activity and project managers, as there is no requirement to manage and respond to annual plan submissions.

· Eliminates costs of annual plan consultation.

· Reduced risk of community engagement fatigue.

· Reduced ability to bundle together issues for community engagement.

· Risk of community criticism for a lack of consultation on the annual plan.

· Loss of opportunity for community input into the annual plan.

35. Option 2 – Consultation standard approach (Not recommended)

36. Council follows the current annual plan consultation approach and conducts a regular month-long consultation taking into consideration Section 82 of the Local Government Act.

37. Key risk: community engagement fatigue and organisational capacity.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Community perceives council as conducting robust and transparent consultation.

· High risk of community engagement fatigue

· Additional time required for council meetings to hold hearings.

· Increased organisational burden as submissions are received, processed and responded to by corporate teams and activity and project managers.

Approach to Communications and Engagement

38. Should council choose to consult (Option 2) on the Annual Plan 2026/27, the Elected Member Working Group had requested in January that staff bring via this report suggestions on the type of engagement that could be used should engagement occur.

39. The request is also asked that dates be included in this information. However, as venue bookings usually require non-refundable deposit, staff are of the view that prior to any booking being made that decisions from this paper need to be made first.

40. Potential engagement activities this would include the following:

· Council-owned channels (website, social media, e-newsletters)

· A broad paid media schedule (digital, newspaper, billboard, and radio)

· Use of the rates and engagement databases to directly reach a larger number of ratepayers and residents

· Use of Newsbeat (TCC’s news platform) to share councillor video content promoting engagement opportunities and consultation questions

· Pre-engagement with identified stakeholders

· Up to two large-scale Town Hall events led by the mayor and recorded (replacing council-based Q&A sessions)

· Councillors and staff attending community events and high foot-traffic locations

· A demographically representative market research survey managed by an external research company.

Approach to using demographically representative market research survey during consultation

41. Demographically representative surveys are used to support public consultation by providing a statistically robust snapshot of wider community views, including those less likely to participate.

42. Historically, surveys have formed part of Annual Plan consultation and are not recommended as a standalone engagement approach.

43. This was reflected in the last Annual Plan through the Annual Plan / Local Water Done Well survey, which interviewed 253 Tauranga residents and achieved a margin of error comparable to recognised benchmarks.

44. The type of method used last year was an online external research panel which enables two main benefits in that it reduces costs as there is no need to post out surveys, and it also reduces the risk of people making a submission via council’s website and then also receiving a survey invite.

45. While larger samples can reduce the margin of error, they require contacting significantly more people and increase cost. For example, at a 10% response rate (typical of a postal survey methodology), 250 would responses require contacting around 2,500 people while 1,000 responses would require contacting around 10,000 people. In this context, a 250-respondent online panel survey (online panels achieve in the range of 30% completion rate, so only around 750 people would be contacted for 250 interviews) represents a proportionate and established benchmark alongside consultation.

46. The table below compares sample size options, showing how changes in methodology and respondent numbers affect margin of error.

Number of people	Margin of error	Confidence level
250	+/- 6%	95%
500	+/- 4%	95%
1000	+/- 3%	95%

47. Depending on the number of people to be surveyed, the number of questions asked, types of questions to be asked (e.g. open ended, close questions) and methodology to be used (e.g. online external research panels, mailouts etc) the costs could vary between (estimated) $25,000 up to $50,000.

48. Based off the information above staff are of the opinion that if a survey is used again for this annual plan, we could directly appoint the same provider as last year to conduct a similar survey to last year which would interview around 250 respondents and have a margin of error of +/- 6% at a confidence level of 95%. However, final costs would be dependent on the number and the format of the questions.

49. Staff also confirm that the questions in this survey will be the same questions used as the online submission form open to the public. This was also the case in the survey undertaken for last year’s Annual Plan/Local Water Done Well survey.

Approach to Hearings

50. Another of the requests from the Elected Member Working group included staff providing alternatives to traditional hearings.

51. Alternatives ideas from other councils have used in their past consultations include:

1. Holding less-formal sessions to allow people to share their views. Where you have round-table discussions where one or two elected members sit with a group of submitters or interested parties and hear their views. Those elected members, or staff invited to be present, would then collate those views and share them with the wider elected member cohort so that everyone hears the stories.

2. Also, a variation to above is that these could be done online, as we already allow and are equipped for people presenting remotely for hearings. These could also likely be recorded making for ability to capture the views via recording. (noting if chosen this option would require confirmation with digital services)

3. A reduced membership ‘hearings committee’ could be created to hear submitters and then report back to full council to aid decision-making (noting, that all elected members would still be expected to have read all the written submissions prior to deliberations).

52. With any of the options mentioned above, we would need to capture, summarise and share the information so that all elected members were able to access it before decisions were made in deliberations.

53. Through all of this, the key will be in ensuring that we are aware of the requirements of the Act relating to the principles of consultation under section 82, the relevant ones for hearings of which are:

· encouraging people to present their views

· providing a reasonable opportunity for people to present their views in a manner that suits them

· considering views presented with an open mind

· having processes in place for consulting Māori.

54. Staff are seeking for council to confirm that if they do consult on the annual plan that they wish to proceed with traditional hearings or if they would like to further explore one of the options mentioned above.

Approach to Submission Responses

55. The final request of the working group was that staff plan for a submission process and online form that can be analysed and responded to by Artificial Intelligence (AI), in this instance it is presumed the request was in regard to Generative AI.

56. Generative AI means AI systems that can create or generate new content, such as text, images, video, or audio, often by learning from existing data patterns.

57. While our current submission software that staff use to collect and analyse submissions already has (generative) AI functionality built in. It is typically only used with the summarising of submissions to then enable creation of a high-level summary of the main points of the submission.

58. However, when it comes to using AI to directly respond to submissions on behalf of council staff would not recommend its use. Whilst AI is a useful tool it also makes a number of errors that still need to be manually checked by a person. Additionally, as per clause 6.12 in council’s Artificial Intelligence Policy 2025, staff remain responsible for reviewing and editing outputs from generative AI.

59. Given the need to check each and every response, staff are of the view that there would be little to no time saving efficiencies achieved when compared with the current process.

60. Staff can and do look for efficiencies each submission period. In the past we have used tools like going through the previous year’s responses by activity to look for themes and common responses that can be used again.

61. An alternative approach that staff can look at for this upcoming process is that we do not respond individually to each submitter. It is currently the practice of council, although it should be noted that it is not legislatively required to respond to each submitter individually.

62. Instead as part of this year’s annual plan staff could use a similar approach to that used by Western Bay of Plenty District council and send every submitter an email response that is the same along with a link to a decision document that will be created by staff after deliberations.

63. An example of the Western Bay of Plenty District council 2023/24 decision document for their annual plan is available at the following link for reference: https://www.westernbay.govt.nz/repository/libraries/id:25p4fe6mo17q9stw0v5w/hierarchy/council/plans-and-strategies/annual-plans/2023-24%20Annual%20Plan/2023-24%20Annual%20Plan%20Decision%20Document.pdf

64. Staff are seeking council’s direction in on the following options for submission responses:

Option 1: Personalised response to all submissions (Not recommended)

65. Council continues with its current practice and responds individually to each submission to the Annual Plan 2026/27.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Community perceives council as conducting good practice consultation. · It is the standard practice that the community is used to. · Closes the loop on topics they have raised in their submission.	· Least efficient way of responding to submissions. · Out of line with a number of other councils that only respond with generic key decision documents. · Increased organisational burden as submissions are received, processed and responded to by corporate teams and activity and project managers.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Community perceives council as conducting good practice consultation.

· It is the standard practice that the community is used to.

· Closes the loop on topics they have raised in their submission.

· Least efficient way of responding to submissions.

· Out of line with a number of other councils that only respond with generic key decision documents.

· Increased organisational burden as submissions are received, processed and responded to by corporate teams and activity and project managers.

Option 2 – Generic response to all submissions (Recommended)

66. Council adopts a new and more efficient approach to submission responses by only responding to submitters with generic responses to point them to documents that highlight the key decisions made in the Annual Plan 2026/27.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Reduced workload for elected members while dealing with the aftermath of the January weather event (by not needing to review and endorse each individual proposed response).

· Reduced workload for corporate teams and activity and project managers, as there is no requirement to manage and respond to annual plan submissions.

· Improved organisational capacity to focus on Long-term Plan 2027-2037 (LTP).

· Other councils have used this approach successfully in the past.

· Community perceives council as conducting not as good a practice consultation.

· Less personal

· May take time for regular submitters to get used to this new approach.

Timeline of Annual Plan to Adoption

67. If no consultation takes place, the only key statutory date is adoption before 30 June 2026.

68. To meet this deadline, all decision-making on the annual plan would need to be completed in a time consistent with the deliberations above i.e. 4 June 2026.

	2026/27 No Consultation Option	2026/27 Consultation Option
Adopt draft AP content	NA	Tue 3 March 2026
Adoption of CD	NA	Tue 24 March 2026
Consultation opens	NA	Wed 1 April 2026
Easter	3 to 6 April 2026	3 to 6 April 2026
School holidays	3 to 19 April 2026	3 to 19 April 2026
Anzac Day holiday	Mon 27 April 2026	Mon 27 April 2026
Consultation closes	NA	Fri 1 May 2026
Hearings meeting agenda published	NA	Mon 11 May 2026
Hearings meeting	NA	Mon 18 to Thu 21 May 2026
Deliberations meeting agenda published	NA	Tue 26 May 2026
Deliberations meeting	NA	Tue 2 to Thu 4 June 2026
AP content adopted	Thu 4 June 2026	NA
Adoption report agenda published	Tue 16 June 2026	Tue 23 June 2026
Adoption of annual plan	Tue 23 June 2026	Tue 30 June 2026

Statutory Context

69. In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), Council is required to produce and adopt an annual plan, by 30 June 2026. The purpose is to identify variations from the financial statements of the third year of the current Long-term Plan.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

70. The annual plan provides the funding that contributes to the promotion or achievement of all of Tauranga City Council’s strategic community outcomes. How funding is allocated will determine the impact made in each of these areas.

	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

Financial Considerations

71. This report considers budget proposals that contribute to lowering rate requirement for 2026/27 to a target of 7.5% excluding revenue for water supply. Confirmation of budget changes will be applied to achieve a draft budget. It is noted that there is likely to be some variability in savings and rates impacts as details are incorporated in the corporate planning system.

72. Assumptions in the corporate planning system were based on data in November 2025. As the 2025/26 year progresses capital cost and delivery and expenditure and revenue impacts will affect the opening position for the budget. Events such as the recent impacts at Mauao and resultant business impacts and expenditure requirements will also influence the final budget.

Legal Implications / Risks

73. In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, Council must consult with the community if the annual plan includes significant or material differences from the content of the Long-term Plan for the financial year to which the proposed annual plan relates.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

74. The Annual Plan process does not affect TCC’s ambitions to align with the Te Ao Māori approach. However, funding decisions may have an impact on individual projects or programmes that are specifically working towards fulfilling on the approaches.

CLIMATE IMPACT

75. The Annual Plan process does not affect TCC’s ambitions to align with the Climate Impact Statement. However, funding decisions may have an impact on individual projects or programmes that are specifically working towards fulfilling on this ambition.

Consultation / Engagement

76. Consultation on the annual plan will be in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

77. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) was amended in 2014 with the intent of streamlining consultation requirements for annual plans. As a result, councils are only required to consult when there are significant or material differences between the proposed content of the annual plan and the content of the long-term plan for the financial year to which the annual plan relates (s95(2A), LGA). At this point in time it is anticipated that the changes in the annual plan are not a significant or material departure from the long-term plan.

78. Taking into consideration the above assessment, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to council deciding and that the annual plan be considered by Council for adoption without consultation.

Significance

79. 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.

80. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

83. Once Council has made decisions regarding expenditure proposals these will be included in the corporate planning system and a draft budget produced for adoption by council on 3 March 2026.

84. Consultation and engagement decisions will guide further work and proposals for annual plan engagement.

85. Capital programme delivery and expenditure will continue to be monitored and updated as projects are delivered and forecasts of expenditure and timing change. Updated project information will be incorporated in April / May and reported to Council prior to finalisation of the budget.

86. Operational revisions and expenditure related to recommendations from the executive or decisions by Council since the draft was prepared, including potential impacts related to the Mauao event, will also be incorporated in a revised draft prior to the final budget being presented to Council in June 2026.

Attachments

1. Opex Savings Opportunities - A19710314 ⇩

2. Confidential - Opex Reduction Opportunities - A19710195 - Public Excluded (Separate Attachments 1)

3. Confidential -LoS savings opportunities tables (with extra column) for elected members - A19729782 - Public Excluded (Separate Attachments 1)

4. Capital Projects to be prioritised - A19729846 ⇩

5. Indicative rates - A19729372 ⇩

6. Pathway to 7.5% - A19729336 ⇩

7. Salaries and FTE Reconciliation - A19729459 ⇩

8. Operational Revenue and Expense including 3 Waters out - A19729982 ⇩


SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 10 February 2026

Date:	Tuesday, 10 February 2026
Time:	9:30 am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Chambers 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