Agenda of Ordinary Council meeting - Tuesday, 21 April 2026

Ordinary Council meeting minutes

3 March 2026

DRAFT MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Tuesday, 3 March 2026

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 4

3.1 Jessica Walker from the SPCA will address their submission on the Draft Street Use & Public Places Bylaw.. 4

3.2 Hayden Duncan from Bower Real Estate will address their submission on the Draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw.. 4

3.3 Residents from Nautilus Apartments. 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 4

6 Change to the order of business. 4

7 Confirmation of minutes. 5

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions. 5

10 Recommendations from other committees. 5

11 Business. 5

11.1 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026 Deliberations. 5

11.2 Draft Dog Management Bylaw and Policy and Keeping of Animals Bylaw for Adoption for Consultation. 6

11.3 Elected Members' Expenses and Resources policy - Home Security Allowance. 7

11.4 Status update on actions from prior Council meetings. 7

12 Discussion of late items. 8

13 Public excluded session. 8

13.1 CCO Board appointments - Bay Venues Limited and Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited 8

13.2 University of Waikato MoU and Student Accommodation. 8

13.3 Special litigation report 8

Confidential Attachment 2............ 11.4 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings. 9

14 Closing karakia. 9

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

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

ON Tuesday, 3 March 2026 AT 9:30 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), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory & Community Services), Craig Rice (Chief Operating & Financial Officer), Jeremy Boase (Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience), Shawn Geard (Manager: Transport System), Jane Barnett (Policy Analyst), Vicky Grant-Ussher (Policy Analyst), Oscar Glossop (Team Leader: Animal Services), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor),

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 3 March 2026 on the Council's YouTube channel

1 Opening karakia

Cr Hautapu Baker opened the meeting with a karakia.

Presentation to staff member

The Mayor made a presentation to Lance Barlow from the City Waters Wastewater Treatment Plant team on the occasion of his 40 years of service to Tauranga City Council. The Mayor noted that Mr Barlow had played a critical role in keeping the treatment plants and pump stations operating safely, efficiently and reliably at a time when the network had more than doubled in size. He also noted the positive influence Lance had on the wider City Waters team.

2 Apologies

Nil

3 Public forum

3.1 Jessica Walker from the SPCA will address their submission on the Draft Street Use & Public Places Bylaw

· Jessica represented SPCA in a national capacity as National Science Manager. She advised that SPCA urged Council to consider introducing clear restrictions on the use of fireworks in public places and in streets. Introducing restrictions would be an important step in addressing community concerns including nuisance, public safety, and fire risk.

· She noted that other councils had implemented a similar approaches. For example, Auckland Council prohibited the setting off of fireworks in public places without written approval.

· SPCA acknowledged that Council could not control the private use of fireworks on private property. She suggested that Tauranga could lead by example and by introducing stronger protections

· SPCA supported the continued use of controlled continued use of notified public displays, but remained concerned about the unregulated private use of fireworks, noting the significant safety and welfare issues that these posed.

· Jessical noted that fireworks regulation was a national issue. SPCA submitted on three petitions presented to parliament, advocating at a national level for a ban on the private sale and use of fireworks.

3.2 Hayden Duncan from Bower Real Estate will address their submission on the Draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw

· Did not attend.

3.3 Residents from Nautilus Apartments

· Did not attend.

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

Nil

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees

Nil

11 Business

Timestamp: 17 minutes

11.1 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026 Deliberations

Staff Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory & Community Services

Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Shawn Geard, Manager: Transport System

Resolution CO/26/3/1

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026 Deliberations".

(b) Approves the following amendments to the draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw:

(i) a maximum size requirement of 1200mm high x 800mm wide for real estate signs

(ii) open home and auction signs may only be displayed on the day of the open home or auction.

(c) Resolves, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 that the proposed Street Use and Public Places Bylaw (Attachment One):

(i) is the most appropriate way to help protect the community from public nuisance and offensive behaviour, protect public health and safety, and protect council-controlled public places and the environment from misuse

(ii) is the most appropriate form of the bylaw

(iii) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, noting that any implications are considered reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society as they are necessary to protect public safety, amenity and the rights of others using public places.

(d) Adopts the final Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026, to come into force on 1 July 2026.

(e) Authorises the General Manager: Regulatory and Community Services to make any necessary minor final edits to the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026, prior to publication.

(f) Directs staff to prepare a draft amendment to the bylaw to prohibit fireworks in all Council owned and or controlled public places.

Carried

Timestamp: 40 minutes

11.2 Draft Dog Management Bylaw and Policy and Keeping of Animals Bylaw for Adoption for Consultation.

Staff Sarah Omundsen, General Manager Regulatory & Community Services

Vicky Grant Ussher, Policy Analyst

Oscar Glossop, Team Leader: Animal Services

Resolution CO/26/3/2

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Dog Management Bylaw and Policy and Keeping of Animals Bylaw for adoption for consultation."

(b) Agrees to the following approaches to be included in the draft Bylaws, Policy and Statement of Proposal for public consultation:

(i)	Issue 1 - Waterfront Area	Option A - Limit the leash restricted area to 1 Dive Cresent (the northern waterfront park entrance) to the base of the Matapihi bridge.
(ii)	Issue 2 – Shark Alley boundaries	Option B - Add dog restrictions to Shark Alley and encompass the adjacent dunes, grassed area, boardwalk and greenspace up to the kerb of Marine Parade opposite 31 Marine Parade
(iii)	Issue 3 – areas fenced for accessibility and inclusion	Option C - Prohibit dogs from specified fenced public places – fenced area, as well as tailored rules for exit, entry and transit specific to each space.
(iv)	Issue 4 – beach accessways	Option A – Require dogs to be on leash through designated beach accessways.
(v)	Issue 5 – Bee Regulation	Option B - Remove the specific bee provision and instead use the new general powers clause where this is necessary to manage bee issues.

(c) Agrees to adopt for consultation the attached draft Dog Management Bylaw (Attachment 1) and Policy (Attachment 2) and draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw (Attachment 3) and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 4).

(d) Resolves, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Attachment 5) that the draft Dog Management Bylaw and draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw:

(i) are the most appropriate ways to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally from dogs, and to protect public health and safety and minimise nuisance from the keeping of animals

(ii) are the most appropriate forms of the bylaw

(iii) are not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, noting that any implications are considered reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society as they are necessary to protect public safety, amenity and the rights of others using public places.

(e) Delegate to the General Manager: Regulatory and Community Services authority to make any amendments necessary to give effect to decisions in recommendation (b) and any minor or typographic changes required prior to public consultation.

Carried

Timestamp: 1 hour and 7 minutes

11.3 Elected Members' Expenses and Resources policy - Home Security Allowance

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

Resolution CO/26/3/3

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Elected Members' Expenses and Resources policy - home security allowance".

(b) Adopts the draft revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources policy, incorporating the addition of the home security section. (Attachment 1).

(c) Approves retrospective reimbursement of any home security eligible under the Elected Members Expenses and Resources Policy which was installed from 1 July 2025, being the date the Local Government Elected Members (2025/26) Determination 2025 came into force, where all requirements of the Policy have been met except for a security threat and risk assessment being authorised prior to the installation. The security threat and risk assessment must still be completed and conclude that a security system is needed for reimbursement to occur.

Carried

Timestamp: 1 hour and 8 minutes

11.4 Status update on actions from prior Council meetings

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

Resolution CO/26/3/4

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

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 privacy of natural persons (as per s7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).

Carried

12 Discussion of late items

Nil

13 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public

Resolution CO/26/3/5

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting at 10.49am.

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:

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 - CCO Board appointments - Bay Venues Limited and Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited	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
13.2 - University of Waikato MoU and Student Accommodation	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
13.3 - Special litigation report	s6(a) - The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial 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)(f)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of Council members, officers, employees, and persons from improper pressure or harassment s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege 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
Confidential Attachment 2 - 11.4 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings	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

14 Closing karakia

Cr Hautapu Baker closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 1.30pm on Thursday 26 March.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 21 April 2026.

Ordinary Council meeting minutes

24 March 2026

DRAFT MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Tuesday, 24 March 2026

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 4

2 Apologies. 4

3 Public forum.. 4

3.1 Matt Cowley - Tauranga Business Awards. 4

3.3 Shad Rolleston on behalf of the Tangata Whenua Working Group Members. 5

3.3 Sam Allen. 5

4 Acceptance of late items. 5

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 5

6 Change to the order of business. 6

7 Confirmation of minutes. 6

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 February 2026. 6

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 6

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions. 6

10 Recommendations from other committees. 6

11 Business. 6

11.1 Local Water Done Well - Project Update. 6

11.2 Local Water Done Well - Commercial Terms. 7

11.3 Local Water Done Well - Due Diligence. 9

11.4 Local Water Done Well - Financial Implications. 10

11.5 Annual Plan 2026-27 Update. 14

11.6 Annual Plan 2026/27 - Levels of Service Options - part 1. 14

12 Public excluded session. 15

13.2 Annual Plan 2026/27 - Levels of Service Options - part 2. 15

13.4 Council-Controlled Organisations - Tourism Bay of Plenty. 15

13.5 Regulatory Hearings Panel Appointments and Terms of Reference. 15

13 Business continued. 16

11.5 Annual Plan 2026-27 Update Continued. 16

11.7 January 2026 Weather Event and Subsequent Expenditure. 18

11.8 Draft User Fees and Charges Schedule 2026/27. 19

11.9 Approval of Draft Development Contributions Policy 2026/27. 20

11.11 Submission to Bay of Plenty Regional Council's Long Term Plan Amendment 20

11.12 Transport Resolutions Report No.60. 21

14 Public excluded session. 21

13.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 February 2026. 22

13.3 Application for development contributions waiver at Tauriko West 22

13.6 Public Art Framework. 22

Confidential Attachment 1 11.1 - Local Water Done Well - Project Update. 22

Confidential Attachment 1 11.3 - Local Water Done Well - Due Diligence. 22

Confidential Attachment 3 11.3 - Local Water Done Well - Due Diligence. 22

Confidential Attachment 5 11.4 - Local Water Done Well - Financial Implications. 23

15 Closing karakia. 23

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

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

ON Tuesday, 24 March 2026 AT 9:30 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), Craig Rice (Chief Operating & Financial Officer), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory & Community), Reneke van Soest (General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure), Charles Lane (Team Leader: Commercial Legal), Tyler Buckley (Commercial Solicitor), Stephen Burton (Transformation Lead – Water Services), Frazer Smith (Manager: Strategic Finance & Growth), Cathy Davidson (Water Organisation Establishment Lead), Jeremy Boase (Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience), Kathryn Sharplin (Head of Finance), Tracey Hughes (Manager: Organisational Financial Performance & Corporate Planning), Gareth Wallis (Head of Community Hubs, Arts, Heritage & Events), Andrew Mead (Head of City Planning & Growth), Mike Seabourne (Head of Transport), Shawn Geard (Manager: Transport System), Caroline Lim (CCO Specialist), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor) Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor), Caroline Irvin (Governance Advisor)

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 24 March 2026 on the Council's YouTube channel - Part 1 and Part 2

1 Opening karakia

Cr Hēmi Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Nil

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular arrived at 9.35 am.

3 Public forum

3.1 Matt Cowley - Tauranga Business Awards

· Mr Cowley, Chief Executive of the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council regarding the Tauranga Business Awards 2026.

· He noted that the awards had been the largest awards held in over 10 years. More than half of the applicants were non-members of the Chamber. An independent panel of judges was used.

· Mr Cowley highlighted the exceptionally high standard of finalists and acknowledged several award winners: JNP Aviation Limited who supply ground crew support to 10 airports in New Zealand, based in Tauranga; Archishade, based in Pāpāmoa, who design and manufacture outdoor shade solutions and the overall winner of Business of the Year , SYOS Aerospace, which specialised in air, land and sea drones. Its head research and development operations were based in Tauranga and it was set to open a large manufacturing plant in Mount Maunganui later this year.

· Mr Cowley noted there is limited support for start-up businesses and encouraged elected members and council staff, when next reviewing the economic development portfolio, to continue strengthening relationships within the sector to maximise the return from Council’s investment.

3.3 Shad Rolleston on behalf of the Tangata Whenua Working Group Members

· Shad Rolleston and Hakopa Tapiata spoke on behalf of the tangata whenua working group members on Local Waters Done Well.

· Mr Rolleston noted that it was a privilege being part of the working group. He acknowledged that one of the objectives was to deliver water services efficiently while taking environmental demands into account. He emphasised that from a te ao Māori perspective, water was valued in an integrated way, and held mana reflecting on the intrinsic relationship between people and the environment.

· Delivering healthy water that supported community wellbeing aligned with these values and was central to the outcomes. Water was an integral part of Māori identity, and there was legislative responsibility for local government to recognise and provide for Māori participation in decision-making.

· Mr Rolleston highlighted that rohe boundaries overlapped both Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council. Māori governance structures were place-based and operated across both councils.

· Mr Tapiata emphasised the importance of tangata whenua governance and participation, moving beyond consultation to having a clear and meaningful role in decision-making processes. He noted the joint working group had achieved this, describing it as a positive, enabling and empowering process. He expressed a desire for this approach to serve as a model for best practice – moving beyond consultation toward genuine partnership.

· It was noted that iwi would continue to participate as long as they saw value and felt their voices were heard, respected and listened to.

3.3 Sam Allen

· Mr Allen, an artist, expressed his view by reading a poem. He considered that there was a lot of pain and worry in the community.

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to the order of business

The agenda was taken in the following order.

7 Confirmation of minutes

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 February 2026

Resolution CO/26/4/1

Moved: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 February 2026 be confirmed as a true and correct record subject to clarifying the vote of Cr Crowther on Item 11.1 (part 3).

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees

Nil

11 Business

Timestamp: 52 minutes (Part 1)

11.1 Local Water Done Well - Project Update

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

Resolution CO/26/4/2

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

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

(b) Notes that future project updates will be provided via the quarterly reporting against the Water Services Delivery Plan (beginning April 2026) to the Department of Internal Affairs.

(c) Adopts the principle of maintaining Tangata Whenua participation, engagement and arrangements, with existing commitments and practices either retained or bettered during, and following, the transition to a Water Organisation. Notes that involvement by tangata whenua in this process will require a new terms of reference and a review of remuneration.

(d) Notes the future key milestones in this report, and the list of topics scheduled for consideration and further work post-April 2026 as provided by Attachment 3.

(e) Attachment 1 can be transferred into the open following negotiations with affected staff and IAWAI

Carried

Timestamp: 1 hour and 21 minutes (Part 1)

11.2 Local Water Done Well - Commercial Terms

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

Charles Lane, Team Leader: Commercial Legal

Tyler Buckley, Commercial Solicitor

Actions Requested:

That staff:

· Look at options around transparency regarding publicly available agendas

· Note as part of recruitment process that the Chief Executive is advised of the preferred request for transparency

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolution CO/26/4/3

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

Part 1

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Commercial Terms" and Attachment 1.

CARRIED

Motion

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Council:

(b) Approves and endorses the Commercial Term Sheet at Attachment 1:

(i) With no exceptions;

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

LOST 4/6

Part 2

That the Council:

(c) Subject to a decision by both Tauranga City Council and Western Bay Of Plenty District Council to approve the Local Water Done Well due diligence (proposed for 24 March 2026), and a decision by both Tauranga City Council and Western Bay Of Plenty District Council to establish the Water Organisation (proposed for 2 April 2026):

(i) Tauranga City Council and Western Bay Of Plenty District Council shall work together in good faith to resolve any outstanding commercial terms not yet approved by both Tauranga City Council and Western Bay Of Plenty District Council.

(ii) Notes that staff will prepare the Water Organisation’s Shareholders’ Agreement and Company Constitution:

(1) In a manner that is consistent with the approved Commercial Term Sheet and any additional commercial terms subsequently agreed by Tauranga City Council and Western Bay Of Plenty District Council; and

(2) To enable incorporation of the Water Organisation by 1 July 2026, with operations commencing on 1 July 2027.

CARRIED

(d) In relation to whether Tangata Whenua may hold Class A (voting) shares in the Water Organisation, confirms that Class A (voting) shares in the Water Organisation may:

(ii) be held only by shareholding councils.

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom and Cr Kevin Schuler

Against: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Hēmi Rolleston and Cr Rod Taylor

CARRIED 7/3

Part 3

That the Council:

(e) Notes all parties on the Joint Working Group have reached a consensus on all terms within the Commercial Term Sheet at Attachment 1, with the exception of whether Tangata Whenua should hold Class A (voting) shares in the Water Organisation.

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

Against: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther,

CARRIED 8/2

Part 4

That the Council:

(f) Notes staff will report back to Tauranga City Council and Western Bay Of Plenty District Council in relation to the draft Shareholders’ Agreement and Company Constitution for the Water Organisation for endorsement and approval prior to execution by the Mayor and Chief Executive.

(g) Notes that the Joint Committee’s role is recommendatory only, and that final decision- making authority rests with Class A Shareholders.

(h) That Council’s position is that the Water Organisation’s draft Statement of Expectations will incorporate transparency provisions governing how the organisation conducts its business.

carried

At 12.40pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.30pm the meeting resumed in open.

Resolution CO/26/4/4

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Part 5

That the Council:

(b) Approves and endorses the Commercial Term Sheet at Attachment 1:

(ii) With the exception of commercial term:

(1) 17, Joint committee membership. Members representing Tauranga City Council must be elected members.

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

Against: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

CARRIED 6/4

Part 6

That the Council:

(b) Approves and endorses the Commercial Term Sheet at Attachment 1:

(ii) With the exception of commercial term:

(2) 44, Selection of Chair of Board of Directors - Option B Councils select and appoint the Chair

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

Against: Cr Marten Rozeboom and Cr Kevin Schuler

CARRIED 8/2

Timestamp: 4 hours and 27 minutes (Part 1)

11.3 Local Water Done Well - Due Diligence

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

Resolution CO/26/4/5

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Due Diligence".

(b) Notes the contents of the due diligence reports for legal, people and workforce and AMOS (asset management, operations and stormwater).

(c) Accepts that no issues or risks were identified which jeopardise the feasibility of proceeding to establish a joint Water Organisation with Western Bay of Plenty District Council. Notes that cross boundary issues are being addressed through a separate paper.

(d) Notes that implementation actions recommended by the due diligence reports will be incorporated into the forward work programme, if Council decides to proceed with establishing of a joint Water Organisation with Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

(e) Attachment 1 will not be transferred to public as it is legally privileged, a redacted version is available as Attachment 2 to this Council report.

(f) Attachment 3 can be transferred into the open once workforce negotiations are completed.

Carried

Timestamp 4 hours and 35 minutes (Part 1)

11.4 Local Water Done Well - Financial Implications

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager Strategy, Partnerships & Growth

Craig Rice, Chief Operating & Financial Officer

Kathryn Sharplin,Head of Finance

Frazer Smith, Manager: Strategic Finance and Growth

Action Requested:

· That as part of the LTP development, the CEO brings a paper to Council prior to Dec 2026 with a proposal to fund and mitigate the stranded overheads estimated at $9-$10m recognising that rates capping is on its way.

Motion

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Financial Implications".

(b) Notes that updated financial modelling has delivered results consistent with the previous results reported to Council, and that a multi-council Water Organisation remains the most cost-effective option for the community.

Financial Due Diligence Report

(c) Accepts, noting (g) to (j) below, that the financial due diligence report identified no issues which would jeopardise the successful establishment and operation of the proposed Water Organisation

(d) Notes that implementation of next steps recommended by the financial due diligence report will be incorporated into the forward work programme if Council decides to proceed with establishing a joint Water Organisation with Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

Cost Impacts of Establishing a Water Entity

(e) Notes there are likely to be an estimated $9m to $10m pa of costs remaining in Council, which were previously allocated as overheads to the water services activity, which will need to be managed downwards as part of the transition to a Water Organisation and right sizing of Council.

(f) Approves the following principles to guide the exit of water services from Council and the right sizing of the remaining corporate functions at Council.

(i) Set the Water Organisation up for success.

(ii) De-risk the transfer of functions.

(iii) Ensure the costs of set-up for the organisation and reset for the remaining Councils are minimised.

(iv) Follow a process that is fair to staff affected by the change.

(v) Have a medium-term view that the water organisation will be an efficient standalone Organisation.

Cross-boundary

(g) Approves progressing good faith negotiations with Western Bay of Plenty District Council to agree two separate growth-related comprehensive funding agreements by 31 March 2027 for future and current (to be specifically defined) infrastructure, one agreement for each of:

(i) Waters infrastructure and services

(ii) Non-water infrastructure and services

(h) Agrees to the good faith negotiations being guided by the principles of:

(i) Growth pays for growth

(ii) everyone pays their fair share

(iii) Water organisation foundation documents only deal with water growth issues (not other infrastructure issues)

(iv) Water organisation set up for success

(i) Agrees to the good faith negotiations process steps to include the following:

(i) Problem statement definition developed and agreed

(ii) Perspectives of each Council shared, listened to, and develop pathway options together

(iii) Define the principles, process and arrangements that will be applied going forward.

(j) Commits to best endeavours negotiation to reach agreement with Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and in the event that a resolution is unable to be reached by 31 March 2027, Tauranga City council will consider options to preserve its financial interests and ensure a fair and equitable position.

(k) Attachment 5 can be reviewed for potential transfer into public after 12 months.

AN AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED:

Moved: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

Amends the dates in recommendation (g) and (j) to 31 May 2026

For: Deputy Mayor Scoular, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Against: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Tied 5 all

The Mayor decided not to use his casting vote. LOST

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolution CO/26/4/6

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Part 1

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Financial Implications".

Financial Due Diligence Report

(c) Accepts, noting (g) to (j) below, that the financial due diligence report identified no issues which would jeopardise the successful establishment and operation of the proposed Water Organisation

Cost Impacts of Establishing a Water Entity

(f) Approves the following principles to guide the exit of water services from Council and the right sizing of the remaining corporate functions at Council.

(i) Set the Water Organisation up for success.

(ii) De-risk the transfer of functions.

(iii) Ensure the costs of set-up for the organisation and reset for the remaining Councils are minimised.

(iv) Follow a process that is fair to staff affected by the change.

(v) Have a medium-term view that the water organisation will be an efficient standalone Organisation.

CARRIED

Part 2

That the Council:

Cross-boundary

(i) Waters infrastructure and services

(ii) Non-water infrastructure and services

(h) Agrees to the good faith negotiations being guided by the principles of:

(i) Growth pays for growth

(ii) everyone pays their fair share

(iii) Water organisation foundation documents only deal with water growth issues (not other infrastructure issues)

(iv) Water organisation set up for success

(i) Agrees to the good faith negotiations process steps to include the following:

(i) Problem statement definition developed and agreed

(ii) Perspectives of each Council shared, listened to, and develop pathway options together

(iii) Define the principles, process and arrangements that will be applied going forward.

(k) Attachment 5 can be reviewed for potential transfer into public after 12 months.

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

Against: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Glen Crowther and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Carried 7/3

Attachments

1 LWDW Finance Presentation

At 3.38pm the meeting adjourned.

At 4.02pm the meeting resumed in open.

Extension of Meeting Time

Resolution CO/26/4/7

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council meeting of 24 March extends past six hours.

Carried

Timestamp: 6 hours and 32 minutes (Part 1)

11.5 Annual Plan 2026-27 Update

Staff Craig Rice, Chief Operating & Financial Officer

Kathryn Sharplin, Head of Finance

Tracey Hughes, Manager: Organisational Financial Performance & Corporate Planning

Discussion commenced on this item but was adjourned until later in the meeting.

Timestamp: 7 hours and 7 minutes (Part 1)

11.6 Annual Plan 2026/27 - Levels of Service Options - part 1

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

Gareth Wallis, Head of Community Hubs, Arts, Heritage & Events

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolution CO/26/4/8

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

Part 1

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Annual Plan 2026/27 - Levels of Service Options - part 1".

(b) Approves the following option for 2026/27 for each of the levels of service identified in this paper:

Climate engagement, education & public awareness (Attachment 1)

(i) Option 2 – Reduce budget to $100,000 and allocates 0.1 FTE Communications support

Climate-related grants and funding (Attachment 2)

(ii) Option 2 – Reduce each of the three external grant funds to 50% of the 2025/26 value (being an additional saving of $85,000 above the $50,000 saving previously made), leaving a total remaining budget of $135,000.

CARRIED

Part 2

That the Council:

Event funding (Attachment 3)

(iii) Option 3 – Reduce the amount of rates funding needed in 2026/27 by $500,000 and top up the available funds with $300,000 from the Event Reserve.

For: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Hēmi Rolleston and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular and Cr Kevin Schuler

Carried 7/3

12 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public at 5.02 pm

Resolution CO/26/4/9

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

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

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
13.2 - Annual Plan 2026/27 - Levels of Service Options - part 2	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)(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 - Council-Controlled Organisations - Tourism Bay of Plenty	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 - Regulatory Hearings Panel Appointments and Terms of Reference	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 6.32pm the meeting resumed in open.

At 6.32pm the meeting adjourned.

At 7.15pm the meeting resumed in open.

13 Business continued

Timestamp 1 minute (Part 2)

11.5 Annual Plan 2026-27 Update Continued

Staff Craig Rice, Chief Operating & Financial Officer

Kathryn Sharplin, Head of Finance

Tracey Hughes, Manager, Organisational Financial Performance & Corporate Planning

Motion

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Annual Plan 2026-27 Update ".

(b) Confirms the capital budget of $400m for projects in 2026/27 and the list of deferred projects to be reprioritised through the LTP per Attachment 1. A further $50m of carry forwards from 2025/26 is anticipated.

(c) Agrees to the annual plan budgets for waters as set out in Attachment 2 with a rates requirement of $96m excluding water by meter charges. This is an increase after growth of 7.5%. The water by meter charge has increased by 7.5% from $3.87 per cubic metre to $4.16 per cubic metre, including GST.

(d) Notes that based on decisions from 10 February 2026 and, including recommendations (b) and (g) in this report, the rates requirement for 2026/27 excluding waters would be $260m, which is a rates increase of 9.7% after growth if no placeholder budget for the Māori ward is included or 9.9% if it is.

(e) Notes that currently no budget for Māori ward consultation is included in the draft financials in this report.

(f) Agrees regarding a Māori ward referendum budget to

(i) include $500,000 as a placeholder expenditure budget for a referendum on the Te Awanui Māori ward if future Council decision-making leads to a need for such a referendum which would have a rates impact of $350k.

(g) Agrees that additional budgets are included in the 2026/27 Annual Plan for the January 2026 weather event recovery and review of $2.6m to be funded from the risk reserve, which has a net impact on debt for the year of $2.6m with only the cost of borrowing impacting rates (up to $100k).

(h) Notes the risk reserve has a balance at 30 June 2025 of $5m, with a further $1m per annum budgeted to be contributed to the reserve in 2025/26 and in 2026/27 and that the balance would be reduced by costs arising in 2025/26 that are funded from the reserve.

(i) Notes that for capital expenditure the placeholder budget currently included for the January weather event is $6m.

(j) Notes that the above weather event expenditure of $2.6m for opex funded from the risk reserve, and $6m capex funded from loans is currently included in the draft financials in this report.

(k) Notes that the remaining challenge to meet 7.5% rates increase is a rate-funded amount of $5.6m.

(l) Agrees to request the CE to consider further savings and options to achieve 7.5 percent plus any Council approved costs for Mauao and/or cost increases due to the global situation.

(m) Notes that the financial prudence balanced budget measure is currently 97.8% which will need to be disclosed to LGFA as our lender under the terms of the bespoke covenant.

AN AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

That the Council amends (l) to read:

Requests the Chief Executive to consider further savings and options to achieve 7.5 percent plus any Council approved costs for Mauao.

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

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

LOST 4/6

Resolution CO/26/4/10

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Annual Plan 2026-27 Update ".

(e) Notes that currently no budget for Māori ward consultation is included in the draft financials in this report.

(f) Agrees regarding a Māori ward referendum budget to

(i) Notes that for capital expenditure the placeholder budget currently included for the January weather event is $6m.

(j) Notes that the above weather event expenditure of $2.6m for opex funded from the risk reserve, and $6m capex funded from loans is currently included in the draft financials in this report.

(k) Notes that the remaining challenge to meet 7.5% rates increase is a rate-funded amount of $5.6m.

(l) Agrees to request the CE to consider further savings and options to achieve 7.5 percent plus any Council approved costs for Mauao and/or cost increases due to the global situation.

(m) Notes that the financial prudence balanced budget measure is currently 97.8% which will need to be disclosed to LGFA as our lender under the terms of the bespoke covenant.

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

Against: Cr Glen Crowther and Cr Marten Rozeboom,

Carried 8/2

Attachments

1 Annual Plan presentation

Timestamp: 44 minutes (Part 2)

11.7 January 2026 Weather Event and Subsequent Expenditure

Staff Craig Rice: Chief Operating & Financial Officer

Kathryn Sharplin, Head of Finance

Resolution CO/26/4/11

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "January 2026 Weather Event and Subsequent Expenditure".

(b) Agrees retrospectively to the expenditure that has been incurred to date of $2m committed primarily through the emergency response stage, but also at the commencement of recovery and review including the mayoral fund expenditure.

(c) Notes that in addition to these costs internal productivity costs arising from staff redirected to the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) was $150k.

(d) Agrees to delegate to the chief executive the financial authority to undertake further expenditure up to $2.425m this financial year consistent with Table 1 in this report.

(e) Notes the forecast full year deficit for the Beachside Holiday Park of $689k for which loss of profit compensation is being sought from our insurers.

(f) Agrees to fund the expenditure in 2025/26 from the risk reserve.

(g) Notes that costs will continue into 2026/27 and this expenditure is incorporated in additional budget requested in the “Annual Plan 2026-27 Update” report to this meeting.

Carried

Timestamp: 53 minutes (Part 2)

11.8 Draft User Fees and Charges Schedule 2026/27

Staff Craig Rice: Chief Operating & Financial Officer

Jeremy Boase: Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

Alison Law: Head of Spaces & Places

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolution CO/26/4/12

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

Part 1

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft User Fees and Charges Schedule 2026/27".

(c) Adopts the draft User Fees and Charges 2026/27 and Statement of Proposal as set out in Attachments 1 and 2, as a draft for public consultation, incorporating any amendments directed by Council at this meeting subject to the changes tabled at the meeting related to Baycourt and burials under Cemeteries.

(d) Delegates the Chief Operating and Financial Officer to approve the final wording of amendments (as per Council direction) prior to public consultation.

CARRIED

Part 2

That the Council:

(b) Approves Option 1, which adjusts the cost of cremations to cost including inflation and would increase the cost of burials and chapel fees by a total of 6 % (3% increase and 3% inflation) to be included in the draft User Fees and Charges 2026/27 for consultation.

For: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Marten Rozeboom and Cr Rod Taylor

Carried 6/4

Timestamp: 1 hour and 19 minutes (Part 2)

11.9 Approval of Draft Development Contributions Policy 2026/27

Staff Christine Jones: General Manager Strategy, Partnerships & Growth

Resolution CO/26/4/13

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Approval of Draft Development Contributions Policy 2026/27".

(b) Agrees to incorporate the proposed updates to local and citywide development contributions in the draft Development Contributions Policy 2026/27.

(i) Revision of the definition of “bedroom” for the purpose of assessing the citywide development contribution to clarify that second living rooms including multi-purpose rooms like media rooms or rumpus rooms which are capable of functioning as a bedroom will be treated as a bedroom;

(ii) A drafting note to clarify that local development contributions are generally payable for minor dwellings developed in residential zones; and

(iii) Further detail of the calculation methodology used for the Tauriko West, Tauriko Business Estate Stage 4 and Upper Ohauiti catchments.

(d) Adopts the Statement of Proposal and draft Development Contributions Policy 2026/27 for the purposes of public consultation.

(e) Delegates authority to the General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth to make amendments to the draft Development Contributions Policy 2026/27 to correct minor errors in wording or financial information as required.

Cr Baker abstained from voting on this item.

Carried

Timestamp: 1 hour and 25 minutes (Part 2)

11.11 Submission to Bay of Plenty Regional Council's Long Term Plan Amendment

Resolution CO/26/4/14

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Submission to Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s Long-term Plan Amendment".

(b) Approves the draft submission “Tauranga City Council Submission to Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s Long Term Plan Amendment 2024-34” included as Attachment 1 to this report, for lodging with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

(c ) Delegates authority to the Mayor to approve any minor drafting, typographical or presentation amendments as required prior to lodging the submission ahead of the 2 April 2026 deadline.

Carried

Timestamp: 1 hour and 31 minutes (Part 2)

11.12 Transport Resolutions Report No.60

Staff Reneke van Soest: General Manager Operations & Infrastructure

Resolution CO/26/4/15

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Transport Resolutions Report No.60".

(b) Resolves to implement the proposed traffic and parking controls for general safety, operational, or amenity purposes as detailed in Attachment A - including Attachments 2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4 ,7.7, 7.8,7.9,7.16, 7.19.

(c) Approves these changes taking effect on or after 25 March 2026, subject to the installation of appropriate signs and road markings where necessary.

Carried

Items 11.10 Long Term Plan 2027-2037 – Project Plan and 11.13 Ōmanawa Falls Reserve Name Change were not dealt with at this meeting.

14 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public at 8.49 pm

Resolution CO/26/4/16

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

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

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 10 February 2026	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

13.3 - Application for development contributions waiver at Tauriko West	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
13.6 - Public Art Framework	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	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 - 11.1 - Local Water Done Well - Project Update	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)(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
Confidential Attachment 1 - 11.3 - Local Water Done Well - Due Diligence	s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege	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 3 - 11.3 - Local Water Done Well - Due Diligence	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
Confidential Attachment 5 - 11.4 - Local Water Done Well - Financial Implications	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 1.30pm on Thursday 26 March the meeting resumed in open.

15 Closing karakia

Cr Hautapu Baker closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 1.30 pm on Thursday 26 March.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 21 April 2026.

UNCONFIRMED Ordinary Council meeting minutes

2 April 2026

DRAFT MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Thursday, 2 April 2026

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 3

4 Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

5 Business. 4

5.1 Local Water Done Well - Progressing the delivery of water services. 4

5 Public excluded session. 6

13.1 Local Water Done Well - Appointment of an Establishment Chief Executive. 6

6 Closing karakia. 7

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Location: This meeting will be held in the Western BOP Council Chambers, Address: Barkes Corner, 1484 Cameron Road, Tauranga

ON Thursday, 2 April 2026 AT 9.35 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), Craig Rice (Chief Operating & Financial Officer) Reneke van Soest (General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure), Wally Potts (Head of City Waters), Charles Lane (Team Leader: Commercial Legal), Kathryn Sharplin, (Head of Finance) Cathy Davison (Waters Organisation Establishment Lead), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor),
ALSO PRESENT:	Western Bay of Plenty Mayor, Councillors and staff

Mr Chris Nepia opened with a karakia and a mihi whakatau.

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 2 April 2026 on the Council's Youtube Channel 2 April 2026

1 Opening karakia

Cr Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Nil

At 9.44am the meeting adjourned.

Timestamp 14 minutes

3 Public forum

Nessie Kuka - Matakana Island

· Did not support Thames Coromandel District Council joining the Tauranga City Council/Western Bay of Plenty District Council Water Services organisation if formed.

Representatives from the Tangata Whenua Working Group

· Shad Rolleston, Kylie Smallman, Roanna Bennett, and Hakopa Tapiata addressed the Councils on behalf of the wider Working Group acknowledging the contributions of all its members.

· They highlighted the alignment of outcomes in establishing the waters organsiation, emphasising its significance for Māori communities and the Taiao (environment). Water was described as a taonga, valued holistically rather than in separated or compartmentalised parts.

· They supported a broader view of democracy – one that is more inclusive and diverse – emphasising the importance of wider participation as a foundation for long-term sustainability.

Thames Coromandel District Council

· The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive thanked the councils for the opportunity to address the meeting and acknowledged the comments of the other speakers.

· They acknowledged the work completed to date and noted that they were spectators in the process but would appreciate the opportunity to work with the two councils. They added that joining the water organisation (if formed) would make a material difference to their ratepayers.

At 12.59pm the meeting resumed.

At 12.59pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.32pm the meeting resumed.

4 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil.

5 Business

Timestamp: 3 hours and 11 minutes

5.1 Local Water Done Well - Progressing the delivery of water services

Staff Christine Jones , General Manager Strategies, Partnerships & Growth

Kathryn Sharplin, Head of Finance

Motion

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Progressing the delivery of water services".

(b) Confirms that a robust due diligence process has been completed and notes that several matters identified through this process (including key terms) require further development. These matters will be progressed through good‑faith partnership discussions as part of establishing and transitioning to a multi-Council Water Organisation and agrees these will be included in a forward work programme.

(c) Approves the establishment of multi-council Water Organisation with Western Bay of Plenty District Council, with a proposed ‘go-live’ date of 1 July 2027.

(d) Notes that Council remains open to working with other councils that may wish to consider joining the multi‑council Water Organisation in the future, subject to appropriate due diligence and Council approval .

AN AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

Amend recommendation (d) by adding the following words after the words “Council approval” :

, including the need to appropriately recognise cross‑boundary iwi relationships.

For: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach,

Cr Steve Morris, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Mayor Mahé Drysdale and Cr Marten Rozeboom

CARRIED 8/2

A FURTHER AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Council:

Amend recommendation (c) by changing the ‘go live’ date to 1 July 2028.

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

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

LOST 4/6

The substantive motion was then put to the meeting.

Resolution CO/26/5/1

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Progressing the delivery of water services".

(c) Approves the establishment of multi-council Water Organisation with Western Bay of Plenty District Council, with a proposed ‘go-live’ date of 1 July 2027.

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 Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Glen Crowther

Carried 9/1

5 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public at 3.13pm

Resolution CO/26/5/2

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting with the exception of Western Bay of Plenty Elected Members, relevant staff and Hakopa Tapiata.

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

5.1 - Local Water Done Well - Appointment of an Establishment Chief Executive

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)(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

Carried

Resumption of meeting in open at 3:24pm.

At 3.24pm the meeting adjourned.

At 3.45pm the meeting resumed in open.

6 Closing karakia

Cr Hēmi Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 3.47pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 21 April 2026.

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

21 April 2026

11.2 Draft User Fees and Charges Schedule 2026/27

File Number: A20104614

Author: Holly Riddell, Corporate Planner

Authoriser: Craig Rice, Chief Operating and Financial Officer

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present the proposed draft User Fees and Charges for Council to adopt as a draft for consultation and to provide options for cemetery and cremation fees.

Recommendations

That Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft User Fees and Charges Schedule 2026/27 ".

(b) Approves either:

(i) Option 1: Reduce the cost of cremations to cost recovery, increase burials and other related fees halfway to cost recovery and to make further adjustments through the Long-term Plan, or

(ii) Option 2: Fees are reflective of actual costs and moves to a full user pay approach with a zero-operating deficit.

(c) Adopts the draft User Fees and Charges 2026/27 and statement of proposal as set out in Attachments 1 and 2, for public consultation, incorporating any amendments directed by Council at this meeting.

(d) Delegates the Chief Operating and Financial Officer to approve the final wording of amendments (as per Council direction) prior to public consultation.

Executive Summary

2. As part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan process, Council staff have undertaken a review of user fees and charges to ensure they remain fair, equitable, financially sustainable, and aligned with the Revenue and Financing Policy.

3. At its meeting on 10 February 2026, Council resolved to defer the broader comprehensive review of fees and charges to the upcoming Long-term Plan, while proceeding with standard annual updates, including a 3% CPI adjustment. Accordingly, most proposed changes for the 2026/27 financial year reflect minor increases in line with inflation. However, it was requested that options relating to cemeteries be provided.

4. At its meeting on 24 March 2026, Council resolved to approve the draft User Fees and Charges Schedule for consultation to begin on 1 April to 1 May 2026. This included a decision to reduce the cost of cremations to cost and increase burial fees by 6% (3% for inflation and an additional 3% to recover further costs).

5. As requested, this report has been prepared to provide Council with the opportunity to present options relating to cemeteries to revisit and confirm what will be consulted on.

6. Through this review, staff have determined the cost of providing adult cremations, adult casket burials and rose garden ash burials. This is provided in the table below. These fees make up ~87% of the total revenue generated within this service.

7. User fees and charges for each option within this report:

Service	Current fees	Option 1 (halfway to cost)	Option 2 (cost)	Option 3 (cremation at cost, 6% increase on other fees)
Adult cremation	$979	$777	$777	$777
Adult casket burial	$4,256	$5,449	$6,388	$4,511
Rose garden ash burial	$1,500	$3,220	$4,850	$1,590

8. Consultation is now planned for 22 April to 22 May 2026.

Background

9. User fees and charges have been reviewed and updated by staff as part of the comprehensive review requested by Council through the Annual Plan. 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 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.

10. In addition to these reviews in specific activity areas, staff have completed a standard annual review of all other fees and charges.

11. This 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.

12. At its meeting on 10 February 2026 which presented issues and options papers on all comprehensive review areas, Council resolved to defer the comprehensive review to the upcoming Long-term Plan process. For the 2026/27 financial year, standard updates would continue, including the application of a 3% CPI adjustment. In addition, Council requested that options relating to cemeteries be presented to the 24 March Council meeting.

13. At the 24 March Council meeting, the draft User Fees and Charges and Statement of Proposal were presented and approved for consultation which was set to commence on 1 April to 1 May 2026. Three options relating to cemeteries were also provided, from which Council decided that cremation fees would move to cost, and burials and all other fees would increase by 6%. This would increase the annual deficit to around $750,000.

14. Consultation was put on hold and Council asked to revisit cemetery fee options. These have been provided within the options section of this report below.

15. Attachment 1 to this report sets out the proposed changes within the current user fees and charges and the proposed changes for the 2026/27 financial year which were approved at the 24 March Council meeting.

16. Attachment 2 to this report sets out the proposed changes within the Statement of Proposal and the proposed submission form which will be used in consultation with the community. These will be updated based on the decisions made from this report.

17. A separate report for Adoption of Dog Registration Fees and Charges (under the Dog Control Act 1996) for 2026/27 will be presented to Council at its meeting on 12 May 2026.

discussion

18. Cemeteries and cremations were one of the activity groups that were requested by Council for a comprehensive review. Staff undertook this review and presented findings to workshops on 4 September and 27 November 2025. Issues and options were presented to Council on 10 February and 24 March 2026.

19. As a local authority, Council must meet statutory requirements of the Burials and Cremations Act 1964 which includes providing for and maintaining cemeteries and land to bury people.

20. Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy currently does not allow for rates funding of cemeteries, so requires user fee increases each year, which are already relatively high compared to other councils. Cremations make up much of the cemetery revenue and our cremation prices are ~30% higher than other nearby providers’ prices.

21. The population growth Tauranga has experienced has put pressure on capital development with 140-170 burials annually. It is forecast that current burial plot land will be full by 2031 (depending on demand) and capital development is required in prior years to prepare land for future burials as required by the Burials and Cremations Act.

22. The current cemetery business model requires user fees and charges to cover operations, maintenance and the capital programme. When user fees don’t cover these costs, the operating deficit is added to debt, further exacerbating the need to increase user fees and charges. This operating deficit under the current capital programme, is forecasted to reach $24m by 2034.

23. Financial modelling determined Council costs are greater than revenue for casket burials, ash burials and chapel/tui lounge services, resulting in an operational deficit that is funded through debt. This modelling also determined that the cremation price is more than the cost of cremations.

24. Through this review, staff have determined the cost of providing adult cremations, adult casket burials, and rose garden ash burials. This is provided in the table below. These fees make up ~87% of the total revenue generated within this service.

25. Cost to provide services:

Service	Current fees	Cost	% change	Hamilton’s fees*
Adult cremation	$979	$777	-21%	$695
Adult casket burial	$4,256	$6,388	50%	$5,315
Rose garden ash burial	$1,500	$4,850	223%	$1,395

* Between 20–40% of Hamilton Cemetery & Crematorium revenue is funded through general rates, with the remainder recovered through user fees and charges.

26. Through the Revenue and Financing Policy review within the Long-term Plan, Council will assess the funding sources of this activity and determine whether general rates funding is appropriate. Should Council introduce rates funding, this has the potential to reduce the cost of cemetery services to users. The process for this is set to begin in the coming months and therefore a decision to change fees to cost could be better made within the LTP year and the comprehensive review.

27. To support this upcoming process, staff have included a question on rates funding within the draft submission form. This will give Council insight into the community's views on how cemetery services should be funded as it heads into the LTP process. The draft submission form has been included as Attachment 2.

Statutory Context

28. Setting user 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.

29. The recommendation meets the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

30. Council is authorised to set user fees and charges under specific legislation, including:

- Local Government Act 2002

- Resource Management Act 1991

- Dog Control Act 1996

- Building Act 2004

- Reserves Act 1977

- Waste Minimisation Act 2008

- Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

- Food Act 2014

- Food Hygiene Regulations 2015

- Impounding Act 1955

- Health Act 1956

- Sale of Alcohol Act 2012

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

31. 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

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

Options Analysis

Issue 1: Options for Cemetery Parks and Crematorium

Option 1: Reduce cost of cremations to cost recovery, increase burials and other related fees halfway to cost recovery and to make further adjustments through the Long-term Plan

33. Under this option, Council would adjust the cost of cremations to cost recovery and increase burials halfway to cost recovery and move towards a full user pays approach by 2027/28 within the LTP review.

34. This option would also allow Council time to do further analysis and review the funding bands within the Revenue and Financing Policy during the Long-term Plan and potentially allow for general rates funding to keep user fee increases lower than full cost.

35. Chapel and Tui Lounge hire fees will increase in line with CPI. Given the current limited utilisation of these facilities, this approach ensures pricing remains affordable and in line with other chapels while the long-term future of the chapel is under consideration.

Example of fee	2025/26 fees	2026/27 fees
Adult cremation (13 years and over)	$979	$777
Pyes Pa adult casket burial (13 years and over)	$4,256	$5,449
Rose garden ash burial	$1,500	$3,220
Chapel hire (1 hour plus 30 min set up)	$357	$367
Deficit (2026/27 FY)	- $501,000	- $433,000*

* The deficit for all three options has been estimated using previous years’ figures and demand. It is subject to change as demand patterns and usage respond to the updated pricing.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Works toward a user pays approach.

· Potential for increased volume of cremations due to price increase of burials.

· Increases are phased in over the next two years.

· Reduces operating deficit.

· Allows additional time for cost analysis.

· Allows Council to consider general rates funding of the activity to alleviate high increases to user fees.

· Unknown effects on demand for services.

· Significant chapel hire increase will likely reduce demand.

· Substantial increase in burial prices will impact communities who bury for religious or cultural reasons or prefer to bury.

· Puts additional cost pressure on families during difficult economic conditions.

Option 2: Fees are reflective of actual costs and moves to a full user pay approach with a zero-operating deficit

36. Under this option, Council would move to a full user pays approach to create a zero-operating deficit. This would mean adult cremations would decrease, while burial and other fees would increase.

37. This is calculated by understanding the cost of our highest revenue generating services as included below and applying the same percentage increase across similar fees.

38. Chapel and Tui Lounge hire fees will increase in line with CPI. Given the current limited utilisation of these facilities, this approach ensures pricing remains affordable and in line with other chapels while the long-term future of the chapel is under consideration.

Example of fee	Status quo	2026/27 fees
Adult cremation (13 years and over)	$979	$777
Pyes Pa adult casket burial (13 years and over)	$4,256	$6,388
Rose garden ash burial	$1,500	$4,850
Chapel hire (1 hour plus 30 min set up)	$357	$367
Deficit	- $501,000	~$0*

* The deficit for all three options has been estimated using previous years’ figures and demand. It is subject to change as demand patterns and usage respond to the updated pricing.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· User pays approach.

· If demand stays the same, Council will achieve a zero-operating deficit.

· The effect of proposed price increases on service demand is unknown. A reduction in demand would decrease revenue, potentially increasing the operating deficit.

· Significant chapel hire user fee may reduce demand.

· Substantial increase in burial prices may impact communities who bury or prefer to bury.

· Puts pressure on families in a cost-of-living crisis.

Option 3: Cremations at cost, burials and all other fees increase by 6% (this option was adopted by Council on 24 March 2026)

39. Under this option, Council would adjust the cost of adult cremations to cost including inflation and would increase the cost of burials and chapel fees by a total of 6% (3% increase and 3% inflation) as shown in the table below:

Example of fee	Status quo	2026/27 fees
Adult cremation (13 years and over)	$979	$777
Pyes Pa adult casket burial (13 years and over)	$4,256	$4,511
Rose garden ash burial	$1,500	$1,590
Chapel hire (1 hour plus 30 min set up)	$357	$378
Deficit	- $501,000	- $752,000*

* The deficit for all three options has been estimated using previous years’ figures and demand. It is subject to change as demand patterns and usage respond to the updated pricing.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Applies a moderate, manageable increase to burial and chapel fees (6%), rather than a larger jump, helping maintain affordability for bereaved families.

· Potential for increased demand on cremation services due to a reduction in cost.

· Burial and other fees remain below full cost recovery, meaning Council continues to subsidise burial services and the overall activity still carries a large deficit ($752,000 pa).

· Does not fully address long-term financial gaps, requiring additional increases or further review in future years.

· Potential for perceived inequity between service types, as cremations reduce to cost while burials only increase moderately.

· Does not fully align fees with true service costs, which may create challenges in explaining the continued cross-subsidisation to the community.

Issue 2: Approves draft User Fees and Charges and statement of proposal for consultation

Option 1: Council approves the draft user fees and charges and statement of proposal for consultation

40. Under this option, Council approves the draft User Fees and Charges Schedule as proposed in Attachment 1, and the Statement of Proposal and submission form in Attachment 2, with inclusion of a decision on cemeteries.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Managers have reviewed existing fees and charges and have made recommendations based on actual and reasonable costs.

· Engagement and communications planning can be finalised.

· Potential opportunities for other fees and charges may not have been considered.

Option 2: Council requests further changes to the draft User Fees and Charges Schedule

41. Council does not approve the draft User Fees and Charges Schedule and either rejects suggested changes or requests further analysis be undertaken.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Other opportunities for fees and charges changes may be raised and considered.

· Delays in finalising the draft annual plan budgets.

· No time to consult with the community ahead of adoption in June.

Financial Considerations

42. The financial implications of the proposed user fees and charges are included in the draft 2026/27 Annual Plan.

Legal Implications / Risks

43. The proposed changes to user fees and charges 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.

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

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

45. The proposed updates to user fees and charges do not include any changes that affect Council’s Te Ao Māori approach. Feedback will be gathered through the upcoming consultation.

CLIMATE IMPACT

46. The proposed updates to user fees and charges do not include any changes that affect Council’s Climate Impact Statement.

Consultation / Engagement

47. The draft user fees and charges represent fees proposed to be charged to the community.

48. After approval for consultation today, the draft user fees and charges will be consulted on with the community for one month in accordance with sections 83 and 150 of the Local Government Act.

Significance

49. 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.

50. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

52. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that the following consultation/engagement is suggested/required under section 83 of the Local Government Act.

Next Steps

53. Pending decisions from this Council meeting, key steps are:

(a) 22 April to 22 May: Community feedback sought on the draft User Fees and Charges.

(b) May: Staff will analyse feedback and make recommendations on changes.

(d) 2 June: Deliberations.

(e) 23 June: Adopt a final version of the User Fees and Charges.

54. Once finalised, updated fees will come into effect on 1 July 2027.

Attachments

1. 2026-27 User Fees and Charges - Statement of Proposal - A19870421 (Separate Attachments 1)

2. 2026-27 User Fees and Charges Schedule 21 April PDF (Tracked Changes) - A20112705 (Separate Attachments 1)

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

21 April 2026

11.3 Local Water Done Well - Governance and Recruitment

File Number: A19866205

Author: Cathy Davidson, Water Organisation Establishment Lead

Tyler Buckley, Commercial Solicitor

Fiona Nalder, Principal Strategic Advisor

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

Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.

Public Excluded Attachment	Reason why Public Excluded
Item 11.3 - Local Water Done Well - Governance and Recruitment - Attachment 3 - Water Organisation Board of Directors Recruitment Including Costs	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.

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council decisions to approve:

· Terms of Reference for the Water Organisation Joint Committee

· Water Organisation Board Skills Matrix, and

· Commencement of the recruitment process for the initial Water Organisation Board members.

Recommendations

That the Council:

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

(b) Establishes the Water Organisation Joint Committee, giving effect to the Commercial Term Sheet approved by Council on 24 March 2026.

(d) Appoints the following Tauranga City Council elected members as members of the Water Organisation Joint Committee:

(i) _________________

(ii) _________________

(iii) __________________

(e) Appoints the following Tauranga City Council elected members as alternate members of the Water Organisation Joint Committee:

(i) _________________

(ii) _________________

(iii) __________________

(f) Notes that the full Terms of Reference for the Water Organisation Joint Committee will be updated with the names of all Committee members following confirmation of the Committee members by Western Bay of Plenty District Council and appointment of Tangata Whenua representatives.

(g) Approves the Water Organisation Board Skills Matrix, provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

(h) Approves commencing recruitment for three Water Organisation Board members, including the Chair, utilising the services of the external recruitment agency JacksonStone & Partners.

(i) Notes that Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council approval is required to appoint recommended candidates to the Board of the Water Organisation and a further report will be brought to Council to seek this approval.

(j) Notes that a further report will be presented to Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council to consider recommended remuneration for Tangata Whenua representatives of the Water Organisation Joint Committee after an independent job sizing and market benchmarking process has been completed.

(k) Attachment 3 is to be retained in confidential due to commercial sensitivity.

Executive Summary

2. On 2 April 2026 Council decided to establish a multi‑council Water Organisation with Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC). This report seeks Council decisions required to progress the next governance and establishment steps for the proposed Water Organisation (WO).

3. The matters for decision include endorsement of the draft Terms of Reference for a Joint Committee, approval of a Board Skills Matrix, and commencement of the recruitment process for the initial Board members of the Water Organisation:

(a) The Joint Committee will provide an advisory forum for Shareholder and Tangata Whenua engagement during the establishment phase and has no decision‑making powers.

(b) The proposed Board Skills Matrix has been developed to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and to support a transparent, competency‑based recruitment process.

(c) The report recommends engaging an external recruitment agency to recruit up to three initial Board members, including the Chair, to enable the Water Organisation to be incorporated in mid‑2026 and to provide early governance oversight. Any appointments to the Board will be subject to further approval by Council and WBOPDC.

Background

4. This report follows the 2 April 2026 decision to form a WO with WBOPDC. It seeks Council decisions required to progress:

(a) Establishment of the Joint Committee.

(b) Approval of the Board Skills Matrix; and

Establishment of a Joint Committee

5. Council and WBOPDC (the Shareholders) have agreed to establish a Joint Committee consisting of three elected members from each Shareholder (six elected members in total, three per council) and three Tangata Whenua representatives.

6. This report seeks adoption of the Joint Committee’s Terms of Reference (see Attachment 1) and approval to establish the Committee. The Terms of Reference have been developed:

(a) Based on the Local Water Done Well Commercial Terms approved by the Shareholders on 24 March 2026^{^[1]}; and

(b) Consistently with other terms of reference documents that TCC and WBOPDC have developed for other joint committees.

7. Key points to note:

(a) Consistent with previous resolutions, the Joint Committee has no decision-making powers; it is a recommendatory body only.

(b) The range of matters to be considered by the Joint Committee is included within the “Scope” section of the Terms of Reference, and that range of matters was previously approved by the Shareholders on 24 March 2026. The Terms of Reference also empowers the Shareholders to direct the Joint Committee to consider additional matters.

(c) The Shareholders can review the Joint Committee’s Terms of Reference as and when the Shareholders see fit, and the Terms of Reference can evolve over time as the Shareholders wish. The Shareholders must revisit the functions of the Joint Committee at the earlier of either:

(i) another shareholder joining the WO; or,

(ii) at the beginning of the triennium for any new incoming Council, at which point the Joint Committee will prepare a report for consideration by the incoming Council; or

(iii) otherwise as determined by a majority of the Water Organisation’s shareholders, or

(iv) any substantive legislative change or other significant matter impacting treaty settlements.

(d) The Shareholders have the power to appoint (or remove) an Independent Chair to the Joint Committee. The members of the Joint Committee may recommend that the Shareholders appoint an Independent Chair, but the decision remains with the Shareholders.

Approval of the Board Skills Matrix

8. This report recommends commencing approving the Board Skills Matrix that is included as Attachment 2 of this report and summarised below.

Figure 1: Skills Matrix

9. The Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 requires that, in appointing directors to the board of a water organisation, councils must bear in mind the following:

(a) Directors must be appointed based on their competency to perform the role;

(b) Directors must collectively have an appropriate mix of skills, knowledge and experience in relation to providing water services; and

(c) Elected members of shareholding councils, employees of shareholders, and employees of the water organisation cannot be appointed as directors.

10. With the above in mind, the Board Skills Matrix has been prepared. The Matrix was presented to representatives of TCC, WBOPDC and Tangata Whenua through the “Joint Working Group” in the lead-up to Council’s 2 April 2026 decision to form a Water Organisation. The feedback provided by the three parties (TCC, WBOPDC and Tangata Whenua) has been incorporated into the Board Skills Matrix as Attachment 2.

11. A director may cover one or more of the skills required for the Board, but there is no expectation that any one director would have all, or a majority, of the skills set out in the Board Skills Matrix. For clarity, not all skills as set out in the Board Skills Matrix are required to be met at any given time (by directors either individually or collectively as a Board); some skills may be deemed irrelevant at a particular stage, or suitable candidates with specific skills that are required for the Board may not be able to be recruited.

12. If a particular skill is not possessed across the Board of directors, that skill can be fulfilled through other means (such as external consultancy or the skillset of Water Organisation’s executive staff).

13. Approval of the Board Skills Matrix will assist with recruiting the first Water Organisation Board. It will help to inform the advertisements, longlist, interview, and shortlist process.

Recruitment of the Water Organisation Board

14. This report recommends commencing recruitment for up to three Board members, including the Chair, for the WO. Approval is sought to appoint external consultants, JacksonStone & Partners, to run this process.

15. A proposal from JacksonStone & Partners is provided as Confidential Attachment 3, and this provides a fee estimate. JackstonStone & Partners recently completed the recruitment process for the Establishment Chief Executive of the Water Organisation and through that process have gained an understanding of the Water Organisation.

16. The current timeline will see the WO incorporated (i.e. formally established and registered) in early July 2026. A company (including this Water Organisation) cannot be registered without a Board of Directors. With this timeframe in mind, it is proposed that recruitment and appointment of Board members is completed no later than mid-June 2026.

17. The proposed process and approximate timeline to appoint the Board members is set out below.

(a) Detailed brief developed in consultation with Shareholders - late April to early May

(b) Advertising - May

(d) Interviews, reference check and negotiation of offer – mid to late June

18. The Board Skills Matrix at Attachment 2 will inform the recruitment process. Similarly to the recruitment of the Establishment Chief Executive role, it is intended that:

(a) the Chief Executives and General Managers responsible for the waters transition within both Councils will be involved in the recruitment process.

(b) The interview panel will be made up of one representative from each of the Shareholding Councils (likely to be a person who has been appointed to the Joint Committee), with the option of an independent advisor

19. As a reminder, the Council resolved on 24 March 2026 (as part of the Water Organisation’s Commercial Term Sheet) that the Board can comprise up to 5 directors. The Council also resolved that at commencement there may well be less than 5 directors appointed, with the Board only growing to its full size in due course.

20. This report recommends initially appointing only three Board members. One of the successful candidates will fulfil the role of the Chair. Remaining Board members can be recruited as the Shareholders see fit, either before or after the ‘go live’ date of 1 July 2027.

21. The Joint Committee will make recommendations to the Shareholders, and the Shareholders will appoint the Board members and the Chair via Council decision.

Remuneration of Tangata Whenua representatives on the Joint Committee

22. TCC currently has Tangata Whenua representatives on standing committees of Council. Remuneration for these appointees is set by TCC based on an external assessment of the role and market benchmarking for similar sizes roles. TCC has previously used Strategic Pay to undertake this process.

23. It is proposed that Strategic Pay will undertake a job sizing and market benchmarking process (based on the approved role and scope of the Committee). It will also be useful for Strategic Pay to connect with Kevin Lavery, given that with his IAWAI Chair role he has a good understanding of the likely requirements and workload of a Joint Committee member. The outcome of the independent review and advice will be reported back to both Councils for consideration and approval of a remuneration level.

Statutory Context

24. The Joint Committee will be established under clauses 30 and 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

25. The Board of Directors will be established under section 48 of the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025, which requires the following:

(a) Directors must be appointed based on their competency to perform the role; and

(b) Directors must collectively have an appropriate mix of skills, knowledge and experience in relation to providing water services; and

(c) Elected members of shareholding councils, employees of shareholders, and employees of the water organisation cannot be appointed as directors.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

26. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcomes:

	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	☐
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	☐

27. The Water Organisation is being set up to deliver sustainable, affordable, well-planned and maintained water services for the sub-region.

Options Analysis

The Joint Committee

28. Option 1: Adopt the Terms of Reference (Attachment 1), appoint Council Committee members and establish the Joint Committee. (RECOMMENDED)

Advantages

Disadvantages

Enables the timely establishment of the Joint Committee, allowing workstreams supporting the Water Organisation to progress.

Provides a clear and agreed framework for the Joint Committee’s purpose, scope, and operating arrangements.

Is consistent with the Local Water Done Well Commercial Terms approved by the Shareholders on 24 March 2026.

Reflects existing joint committee precedents used by TCC and WBOPDC, reducing governance and process uncertainty.

Preserves Shareholder control, as the Joint Committee is advisory only and does not have decision‑making powers.

Is flexible, allowing the Shareholders to amend the Terms of Reference over time as circumstances change.

It is a legal requirement for Joint Committees to have Terms of Reference.

Continues to support the processed required for Water Organisation establishment by 01 July 2027.

Operates under the LGOIMA requirements for meeting, being open and public.

None identified.

29. Option 2: Do not adopt the Terms of Reference, do not appoint Council Committee members, and do not establish the Joint Committee (NOT RECOMMENDED)

Advantages

Disadvantages

None identified.

Proceeding with the Joint Committee without Terms of Reference would be contrary to legal requirements within the Local Government Act 2002.

Failing to confirm Terms of Reference will prevent the establishment of the Joint Committee, contrary to the agreed Commercial Terms and prior Shareholder decisions.

Risks delays in progressing matters intended to be considered by the Joint Committee.

May undermine alignment and confidence between the Shareholders and Tangata Whenua.

Risks delays in the establishment of the Water Organisation which may impact the go live date of 01 July 2027.

Does not provide for any joint pathway to work through matters on key documents such as the Constitution and Shareholders Agreement before being approved by Council

The Board Skills Matrix for the Water Organisation’s Board of Directors

30. Option 1: Approve the Board Skills Matrix (Attachment 2). (RECOMMENDED)

Advantages

Disadvantages

Ensures the Board recruitment process is aligned with the requirements of the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025.

Provides a transparent, structured and defensible basis for assessing candidates.

Reflects recommendatory input from TCC, WBOPDC and Tangata Whenua through the Joint Working Group.

Supports the appointment of a Board with a balanced mix of governance, technical, financial, regulatory and cultural capability.

Improves efficiency and consistency throughout recruitment, from advertising to shortlisting and interview assessment.

The approved Matrix may limit flexibility to respond to unexpected candidate strengths that sit outside the defined skill areas.

Any future changes in strategic direction may require the Matrix to be reviewed and updated.

31. Option 2: Do not approve the Board Skills Matrix. (NOT RECOMMENDED)

Advantages

Disadvantages

Retains full flexibility to assess candidates without reference to a formal skills framework.

Increases the risk that Board appointments do not fully meet statutory competency requirements.

Reduces transparency and consistency in the recruitment process.

Makes it more difficult to demonstrate that appointments are merit‑based and collectively appropriate.

May result in delays to recruitment while alternative assessment criteria are developed.

Recruitment of Board members to the Board of the Water Organisation

32. Option 1: Commence the recruitment process for the initial three Board members via an external recruitment process. (RECOMMENDED)

33. The external agency JacksonStone & Partners is appointed to manage the recruitment process. This agency has recently completed the Chief Executive recruitment process, has in-depth of knowledge of both Councils, the set-up of the new WO and is offering competitive costing for the recruitment process. The LWDW project People & Workforce Workstream’s independent contractor would oversee this process.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Is independent (i.e. not led by either Shareholder)

The external agency can use their networks to target potential candidates.

High level of confidentiality.

Provides an independent and objective recruitment process.

Enables access to wider national recruitment networks and experienced governance candidates.

Supports a confidential and professional process, appropriate for senior governance appointments.

Builds on JacksonStone & Partners’ recent involvement and knowledge of the Water Organisation and Shareholders.

Reduces the risk of perceived or actual bias by either Shareholder.

Provides assurance to regulators and funders that the Board has the capability to govern a high-risk, highly regulated organisation.

Higher direct cost than an internal recruitment process.

Reduced direct control by Council over day‑to‑day recruitment activities.

34. Option 2: Commence the recruitment process for the initial three Board members via an internal recruitment process. (NOT RECOMMENDED)

35. The recruitment process is led internally, managed by the People & Workforce Workstream independent contractor with oversight by Council’s General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth and WBOPDC’s Programme Director – Water Organisation.

36. This option will remove an external agency from the process and be run by advertising externally and contacting potential candidates directly. This option is likely to require the support of Council’s Human Resources recruitment team to provide an online recruitment system and to assist with the long list and short list process. This process may reduce the cost of recruitment. However, it is unknown at this stage what the final internal cost will be.

37. Following the recruitment process, a report would be brought to Council seeking approval to appoint the recommended candidates.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Lower external consultancy costs.

Greater direct control over the recruitment process.

Limited access to specialist governance recruitment networks.

Increased risk of perceived lack of independence or objectivity.

Higher demand on internal resources during a period of significant establishment activity.

Internal costs and resourcing impacts are uncertain and may offset any savings.

Would need to manage the inter-relationship with WBOPDC in the recruitment process.

38. Option 3: Do not commence the recruitment process for Board members. (NOT RECOMMENDED)

39. Delay recruitment until a later date, at which point the full Board is appointed.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Avoids immediate recruitment and establishment costs.

Defers the need for director remuneration and associated support costs.

Delays the establishment of the Water Organisation (the Water Organisation cannot legally be incorporated without a Board) and delays the WO’s governance arrangements.

Reduces early Board input into key establishment decisions and oversight.

Increases delivery and transition risk as the go‑live date approaches.

Compresses future recruitment timelines, increasing the risk of sub‑optimal appointments.

Risks delays in the establishment of the Water Organisation which may impact the go live date of 01 July 2027.

While delaying Board recruitment reduces short‑term costs, it transfers governance, delivery, and leadership risk into later stages of the programme when flexibility is reduced and consequences are greater.

Elevates change‑management and workforce risk - Staff transition, organisational culture, and stakeholder confidence benefit from visible governance leadership in the transition process.

Financial Considerations

40. These costs form part of the establishment budget for the project and are debt funded opex. They will be transferred to the WO following establishment.

41. The recruitment cost will also be met by the approved establishment budget and will be jointly shared with WBOPDC.

Legal Implications / Risks

42. The establishment of the Joint Committee and the proposed approach to Board recruitment are consistent with the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025. The Joint Committee is advisory only, with no delegated decision‑making powers, which preserves the statutory responsibilities and decision‑making authority of the Shareholders. The Terms of Reference are aligned with the Commercial Terms previously approved by Council and can be reviewed or amended by the Shareholders as required over time.

43. The recruitment of directors based on an approved Board Skills Matrix and through an independent external process supports compliance with the statutory requirements relating to director competency, independence, and conflicts of interest. Legal risk is primarily mitigated through adherence to established governance processes, transparency in decision‑making, and alignment with statutory obligations. Any appointments to the Board will be subject to further Council approval, at which point legal considerations will be reassessed as part of the relevant Council report.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

44. Council is working in partnership with Tangata Whenua on the establishment of the proposed WO, ensuring that Council’s Te Ao Māori principles are considered and integrated into project work.

45. The membership of the Joint Committee includes three Tangata Whenua representatives. Including Tangata Whenua representatives enables their continued involvement in governance discussions.

46. Tangata Whenua representation on the Joint Working Group provided the opportunity for direct input into the Board Skills Matrix. That Matrix requires the Board to possess the following skills:

(a) Deep understanding of Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and an ability implement Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) principles in governance, decision-making and engagement.

(b) Knowledge of the iwi and hapu in the Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty and the impact of the water infrastructure on the iwi and hapu.

(c) A strong understanding of iwi and hapu governance arrangements and existing relationships, commitments and obligations including Treaty settlement arrangements and obligations.

(d) Ability to integrate Māori values and mātauranga Māori into strategic planning, monitoring and operational frameworks.

(e) Strong cultural competency and extensive experience in relationship management with iwi and hapu.

CLIMATE IMPACT

47. This report has no direct climate impacts, however the WO will enable an integrated sub-regional approach to the management and delivery of water, wastewater and stormwater services, providing opportunities for improved climate and environmental outcomes over time.

Consultation / Engagement

48. Engagement regarding Council’s preferred option for water services delivery, establishing a multi-council WO, occurred alongside Council’s 2025/2026 Annual Plan consultation process.

Significance

50. 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 decisions.

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

52. The decision to endorse the Terms of Reference and delegate its finalisation to the Mayor is assessed as of low significance as the Terms of Reference is based on the Commercial Terms which were already approved by Council on 24 March 2026.

53. The decision to commence recruitment of the Board is assessed as of low significance. Note that appointment of the recommended candidates to the Board will occur via Council decision following completion of the recruitment process (and the significance of that decision will be assessed as part of the Council report at that time).

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

55. Following Council approval, officers will establish the Joint Committee that will support the WO, commence Board recruitment, and continue other establishment activities. A further report will be brought to Council seeking approval of the recommended Board appointments.

Attachments

1. Draft Terms of Reference Water Organisation Joint Committee - A20122689 ⇩

2. Water Organisation Board Skills Matrix - A20107531 ⇩

3. Water Organisation Board of Directors Recruitment Including Costs - A20107653 - Public Excluded

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

21 April 2026

11.4 Council-Controlled Organisations: Shareholder Feedback on Draft Statements of Intent 2026/2027-2028/2029

File Number: A19395080

Author: Caroline Lim, CCO Specialist

Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek approval on the shareholder feedback for the Council-Controlled Organisations’ draft Statements of Intent 2026/27-2028/2029, as required by the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Council-Controlled Organisations: Shareholder Feedback on Draft Statements of Intent 2026/2027-2028/2029".

(b) Receives the draft Statements of Intent 2026/27-2028/29 for Bay Venues Limited, Tauranga Art Gallery Trust, Tourism Bay of Plenty, Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited, Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited and Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited’s Letter to its shareholders about its draft Statement of Intent.

(c) Approves the shareholder feedback for Bay Venues Limited, (detailed in paragraph 16 of this report) on the following matters:

(i) Council brand and alignment with community outcomes of “A vibrant city that embraces events”.

(ii) Staff safety and anti-social behaviour.

(iii) Mount Hot Pools language to ensure community not unnecessarily concerned or that any future decisions are not pre-empted.

(iv) Financial stewardship, prudency, and capital programme.

(v) Partnership with Tangata Whenua.

(vi) Staff inflationary adjustments.

(d) Approves the shareholder feedback for Tauranga Art Gallery Trust, (detailed in (paragraph 16 of this report) on the following matters:

(i) Comfort with growth benchmark but would like visitor numbers prior to Toi Tauranga Art Gallery’s closure.

(ii) Acknowledgement of Council feedback.

(iii) Visitor satisfaction and data capture.

(iv) Specific reporting about the reopening of the gallery.

(v) Budget information.

(e) Approves the shareholder feedback for Tourism Bay of Plenty, (detailed in paragraph 16 of this report) on the following matters:

(i) Tourism Bay of Plenty Working Group’s comfort with the document and supportive of the direction this council-controlled organisation is taking.

(ii) Key focus for Council being the decision-making paper to be presented on 21 April regarding Tourism Bay of Plenty’s three funding requests.

(f) Approves the shareholder feedback for Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited, (detailed in paragraph 16 of this report) on the following matters:

(i) Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited Working Group’s comfort with the document.

(ii) The targets are well-aligned and clearly presented.

(g) Notes that as joint shareholder of Tourism Bay of Plenty, Western Bay of Plenty District Council has approved their separate shareholder feedback on Tourism Bay of Plenty’s draft Statement of Intent 2026/27-2028/29 at its Council workshop on 16 April 2026.

Executive Summary

2. Under the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002, Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) are required to prepare a draft Statement of Intent (SoI) each year. The SoI must outline the organisation’s planned activities, performance measures, and financial forecasts for the upcoming three-year period. Each CCO board is responsible for preparing and adopting its own SoI.

3. Draft SoIs must be submitted to the shareholder, Tauranga City Council (Council), by 1 March each year. Council then reviews the documents and provides feedback before the final SoIs are adopted by the CCO boards and delivered to Council by 30 June. Shareholder comments must be provided no later than 1 May. These dates are statutory deadlines.

4. All draft SoIs, except those from Tourism Bay of Plenty (TBoP) and Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited (TMoTPL), were submitted by the 1 March deadline. These two CCOs requested additional time to ensure accuracy and to allow for final Chair sign-off. Given this context, TCC staff did not consider the short delay to be an issue.

5. The Council meeting on 21 April 2026 is the first suitable opportunity for Council to formally receive the draft SoIs and approve shareholder feedback. At the time of writing, the Local Government Funding Agency’s (LGFA’s) draft SoI is scheduled to be presented to the City Delivery Committee on 28 April 2026. As a joint shareholder of TBoP, Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBoPDC) has approved its feedback at its Council workshop on 16 April.

6. Draft SoIs for Bay Venues Limited (Bay Venues), Tauranga Art Gallery Trust (TAGT), TBoP, TMoTPL, and Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services (BoPLASS) are provided as Attachments 1-5 of this report. All draft SoIs meet the legislative requirements of the LGA as outlined in the Background section below.

7. As one of nine shareholders in BoPLASS, Council does not issue Letters of Expectations (LoEs) or provide feedback on this CCO’s draft SoI unless significant concerns arise. BoPLASS’ draft SoI is provided as Attachment 5 of this report, alongside its Letter to its shareholders about its draft SoI (Attachment 6 of this report). Similarly, because Council jointly governs the TMoTP Charitable Trust with the Otamataha Trust, Council does not issue LoEs or provide feedback on this CCO’s draft SoI. Note TCC staff will be working with the Otamataha Trust to finalise TMoTP Charitable Trust’s new SoI for 2026/27–2028/29, which will be delivered by 30 June 2026.

8. Feedback on the draft SoIs has been sought from the Elected Member Working Groups for Bay Venues, TAGT, TBoP, and TMoTPL, as well as from TCC staff who work closely with these CCOs. This feedback is outlined in the Background section below.

9. This report outlines the following matters relating to the draft SoIs of Council’s substantive CCOs:

· Alignment of the draft SoIs FY27-29 with the LoEs FY27;

· Potential impact on levels of service (LoS), given Council’s 18 November 2025 decision not to increase operating grants for CCOs (including no CPI adjustments);

· CCO Working Groups’ feedback and proposed amendments to the draft SoIs.

10. A summary of the draft SoIs, their alignment with the LoEs, and potential LoS impacts is provided below, with further detail in the Background section:

CCO	Summary – overall, draft SoIs show strong alignment with the LoEs
Bay Venues	Bay Venues shows a strong commitment to operate with financial discipline, deliver more for less, prioritise essential renewals, and balance commercial revenue generation with accessible, community‑focused services. Bay Venues also demonstrates a strong commitment to inclusion, accessibility, transparent reporting, and partnership with mana whenua, all of which are explicitly highlighted in the LoE. The draft SoI signals that constrained funding and the potential prolonged closure of the Mount Hot Pools will likely place pressure on service levels. Potential impacts include reduced pool operating hours, the early seasonal closure of Memorial Pool, and temporary capacity challenges during planned major maintenance closures such as Baywave. While efficiency initiatives and targeted fee increases may soften the effects, the draft SoI acknowledges that some service level reductions may be unavoidable.
TAGT	TAGT and Toi Tauranga Art Gallery demonstrate firm commitments to financial prudence, community engagement, inclusive programming, iwi partnerships, and participation in and being part of the Te Manawataki o Te Papa precinct. However, service level impacts are likely due to constrained funding, increased depreciation, and city centre disruption. These pressures may require adjustments to programming, operating models, or service volumes unless additional revenue or efficiencies are achieved.
TBoP	TBoP is operating within Council’s “deliver more for less” expectation, protecting core services while reshaping priorities. Overall levels of service are maintained and core services protected, but three areas present material service risks if unfunded: Our Tauranga Region Place Brand, iSITE Visitor Services capital expenditure, and the Digital Content management required to support the digital wayfinding network.
TMoTPL	Expectations for value for money, sustainability leadership, cultural partnership, risk management, transparency, and delivery excellence, are clearly outlined in COdraft SoI. TMoTPL’s work programme will significantly enhance levels of service across cultural, recreational, community, and civic domains through the delivery of major new assets and public realm improvements. The CCO has identified potential service risks and outlined appropriate mitigations through strong governance, risk management, and financial prudency.

11. While there are no legal implications arising from this report or the draft SoIs, other potential risks may arise, as outlined in the Background section below.

12. TCC staff recommend that Council receives the draft SoIs and approves the proposed feedback. This approach ensures compliance with legislative requirements, alignment with Council’s strategic priorities, and continued transparency and accountability to the people of Tauranga.

13. If Council does not provide shareholder feedback, there is potential for misalignment between Council and the CCOs, particularly in an environment of increased uncertainty.

14. If approved, Council’s feedback will be provided to the substantive CCOs by 1 May, final SoIs will be received by 30 June, and final SoIs will be formally acknowledged at the Council meeting scheduled on 21 July 2026.

Background

Alignment between the draft Statements of Intent FY27-29 and Letters of Expectations FY27, and the potential impact on levels of service

15. The following table outlines the alignment with the LoEs and the potential impact on LoS across Bay Venues, TAGT, TBoP and TMoTPL:

CCO

Alignment with the Letter of Expectations FY27

Impact on Levels of Service

Bay Venues

(Attachment 1 of this report)

There is strong alignment, including:

· Financial stewardship through cost‑reduction focus, efficiency initiatives, renewals aligned to Council’s Long-term Plan and options to maintain surplus via fees and service level adjustments.

· Emphasising commercial activity as a vehicle to subsidise community access, balancing affordability with revenue initiatives and increasing commercial growth initiatives (e.g. events, catering, partnerships, billboards).

· Commitment to accessibility, inclusion, diverse programming and high levels of customer satisfaction.

· Commitment to strengthening iwi/hapū relationships.

· Prioritising renewals and essential capital works, and support for major projects like the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre and Netball Centre relocation.

· Continued commitment to reporting, transparency and “no surprises”.

Note Bay Venues’ draft SoI signals that levels of service are potentially at risk, mainly due to the constrained funding environment and the unexpected closure of the Mount Hot Pools. It has also signalled a net operating deficit of $232,167.

Impact on LoS, including:

· Potential reduction in pool opening hours^{^[2]}.

· Potential early closure of Memorial Pool ahead of redevelopment, reducing community aquatic capacity (achieving cost savings of $100,000 - $250,000)^{^[3]}.

· Network pressure and reduced aquatic availability due to the unexpected closure of Mount Hot Pools, affecting both service capacity and financial performance.

· Temporary loss of service during major planned renewals, including Baywave’s planned maintenance closure.

· Mitigation options outlined include increasing user fees (achieving additional revenue of $55,000 - $130,000) and continuing efficiency initiatives, but the draft SoI is clear that further savings will likely affect service levels if additional revenue cannot be generated^{^[4]}.

TAGT (Attachment 2 of this report)

There is strong alignment, including:

· Clear financial prudence but pressure exists due to depreciation and $0 increase grant.

· Clear commitments to broaden reach and maintain programme quality e.g. delivering a minimum of 15 exhibitions and delivering education programmes to at least 7,000 primary school students.

· Community centric outcomes, inclusiveness and diversity demonstrated through performance targets and event programming.

· Partnerships with iwi, art sector, donors, community funders, and the Te Manawataki o Te Papa Civic precinct.

· Sustainability across all areas (social, economic, cultural and environmental) demonstrated throughout the document and in particular, the performance targets.

Note TAGT’s draft SoI signals a deficit of circa $250,000 per annum for the next three years allowing for increased depreciation on the refurbished gallery and reduced Council funding.

Potential impact on LoS, including:

· Potential need to scale back exhibitions or programmes.

· Reliance on external funding may affect programme certainty (e.g. educational programmes, community events).

· Potential of straining staff capacity and financial resources.

TBoP (Attachment 3 of this report)

There is strong alignment, including:

· Clear response to the financial constraints and operational expectations.

· Comprehensive marketing and destination programmes and operationalised through multiple programme streams.

· Clear delivery of inclusive, sustainable, vibrant tourism that benefits residents.

· Commitment to maintaining active relationships with 2–3 iwi/hapū, supporting Māori tourism operators, and integrating cultural stories.

· Commitment to major capital project alignment (e.g. Te Manawataki o Te Papa, Ōmanawa Falls, TECT Park), and multi-agency coordination across cruise, events and trade networks.

Note TBoP’s draft SoI has signalled three additional funding requests critical to achieving the objectives of this CCO, but sit outside TBoP’s funded work programme – Our Tauranga Region Place Brand, iSite Visitor Services capital expenditure and Digital Wayfinding Network Content Executive role. (These are addressed in a separate report on this 21 April 2026 Council agenda.

Potential impact on LoS, including:

· Reduced scope of campaigns (fewer markets or activations).

· Reduced ability to expand visitor services (e.g. kiosk network, physical presence at events).

· Limited innovation due to focus on protecting core services.

· Potential delays in destination development initiatives, cultural product development, and sustainability programmes.

· Levels of service could decline in visitor servicing, digital communications, and brand integration if these three items remain unfunded.

TMoTPL (Attachment 4 of this report)

There is strong alignment, including:

· Council’s requirement for value for money and prudent financial management, including cost‑saving reviews, whole‑of‑life cost thinking, and maintaining delivery within approved budgets.

· Commitment to a balanced development approach, covering sustainability, cultural inclusion, and community engagement.

· Fully aligned with Council’s community‑centric outcomes, including creating vibrant, inclusive, accessible public facilities aligned to the city’s strategic vision.

· High‑trust partnership, transparency, and a “no surprises” approach, with structured reporting and open communication.

· Consideration of sustainability commitments such as 6 Green Star and WELL certification targets and long‑term operational sustainability.

· Partnership with mana whenua, including cultural design integration and regular governance‑to‑governance engagement.

· Risk management and assurance (including a high focus on enabling a positive safety culture), with detailed risk registers, workshops, and oversight processes.

Note TMoTPL is not a service‑delivery CCO but a project delivery governance entity, so its impact on LoS is indirect but significant. The draft SoI indicates both positive impacts and potential risks.

Positive impacts on LoS, including:

· New and upgraded public facilities for the community to use and enjoy e.g. Library and Community Hub, and the Museum.

· Improved accessibility and inclusion e.g. universal design principles and improved public spaces.

· Enhanced user experience with design fundamentals focussing on vibrancy, enjoyment, welcoming spaces, and connection to place.

· Embedding cultural narratives, partnerships with mana whenua, and culturally aligned design increases the cultural richness of this city.

· Increased capacity for community events and economic activation e.g. new facilities support greater variety, quality, and volume of events, exhibitions, gatherings, and commercial activity, elevating LoS across arts, culture, tourism, and recreation sectors.

Potential impacts on LoS, including:

· Construction disruptions could temporarily reduce access or usability of spaces. The draft SoI mitigates through early identification of emerging risks, stakeholder engagement and implementing controls to minimise disruption.

· Failure to meet timelines would delay LoS improvements. The draft SoI strongly emphasises DIFOTIS (delivery in full, on time, in spec).

· Misalignment with future operating models could affect service quality. The draft SoI mitigates through whole‑of‑life design and cross‑team capex integration with Council’s new Major Projects team.

Shareholder feedback on the draft Statements of Intent 2026/27-2028/29

16. The following table outlines the CCO Working Groups’ feedback on the draft SoIs for Bay Venues, TAGT, TBoP and TMoTPL:

CCO	CCO Working Groups – feedback on the draft Statements of Intent	Minor edits required
Bay Venues	Council brand and alignment with community outcome of ‘A vibrant city that embraces events’ · Strengthen visibility of the Council brand to better reflect and align with Council’s community outcome of embracing events and helping to create a vibrant city. · Encourage Bay Venues to broaden the visibility and promotion of facilities across the city, not only those directly managed by Bay Venues, to reinforce a city‑wide perspective focused on community benefit for the people of Tauranga and alignment with the community outcome. · Current strategic pillars appear somewhat inward‑looking (e.g. focusing on internal teams or partnerships). Bay Venues should adopt a more holistic view that emphasises the provision of facilities for the city and its people, again ensuring a strong connection to Council’s community outcome around events, activation, and vibrancy. Staff safety and anti‑social behaviour · With the increasing incidence of anti‑social behaviour, staff safety must remain paramount. · Request that Bay Venues outline proposed options and initiatives to support staff safety in their final Statement of Intent. Mount Hot Pools · Bay Venues should review the draft Statement of Intent to ensure there is no alarming or premature language regarding the unexpected closure of the Mount Hot Pools. · It is important that the community is not unnecessarily concerned or that any future decisions are not pre‑empted. Financial stewardship, prudency, and capital programme · Strengthen clarity and explicitness around financial stewardship, prudency, and the capital projects programme – specifically on: · Bay Venues to contribute to the development of the sport and recreation investment programme to meet Council’s priorities, in respect of the facilities it is involved with, for the Long‑Term Plan 2027-2037. · Bay Venues to provide input to support consideration of whole‑of‑lifecycle investment impacts for relevant sport and recreation facilities. Partnership with Tangata Whenua · The partnership with Tangata Whenua should be further strengthened, including progressing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). · Staff inflationary adjustments · Bay Venues to provide staff inflationary adjustments in the final Statement of Intent. Information required for Council decision‑making on 21 April Bay Venues to provide the following papers to support decision‑making – details on the funding gap of approximately $320k (annual facility painting programme and operating the Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre facility).	N/A.
TAGT	Comfort with growth benchmark Council is comfortable with TAGT using a baseline of 5% growth as the benchmark for the next financial year, but would like visitor numbers prior to closure to also be reported. Acknowledgement of Council feedback Council is satisfied that both the Board and the gallery have responded constructively to its previous feedback, for example: · Aligning with the Te Manawataki o Te Papa precinct family and branding. · Ensuring diversity and inclusiveness are embedded across programming and events. Visitor satisfaction and data capture Council requires robust and reliable data to inform future decision-making and would like more detail on the gallery’s customer satisfaction survey, specifically: · Whether the survey methodology aligns with other galleries nationally. · Who is being surveyed and how respondents are selected. · How statistics are collected, how surveys are administered, and how visitor contact details and demographic information are captured. Specific reporting about the reopening of the gallery Council would like the Board and the gallery to undertake reporting against the exhibitions set out in their launch presentation. This will support the CCO in reporting back with specific, meaningful insights about the reopening of the gallery. Budget information Council would appreciate receiving the final budget statements as soon as they are available. There was concern about the quantum of the currently reported deficits. Regarding page 19, Council seeks clarification on: · Other income: The movement from $600k to $56k, what was the source of the original $600k? · Other expenses: The decrease from $179k to $117k, does this relate to the reopening?	· Page 10 – add Dave Guruge as a Trustee (section 4.2). · Page 11 – replace ‘HAVC’ systems with ‘HVAC’ systems (section 5).
TBoP	Overall, this is a good document. The working group is comfortable with the draft Statement of Intent and supportive of the direction this CCO is taking. The key focus for Council will be the paper being presented on 21 April, which outlines the three projects requiring funding: Our Tauranga Region Place Brand, iSite Visitor Services capital expenditure, and the Digital Wayfinding Network Content management.	· Page 6 – replace ‘joint’ with ‘separate’ letter of expectation (section 4).
TMoTPL	Overall, the working group is comfortable with the draft Statement of Intent. The targets are well‑aligned and clearly presented.	· Page 4 – replace Letter of Expectations dated ‘13 April 2023’ with ‘17 December 2025’ (Chair’s foreword section). · Page 4 – replace for the years ‘1 July 2025 to 30 June 2028’ with ‘1 July 2026 to 30 June 2029’ (Chair’s foreword section). · Page 4 – replace ‘Civil’ Development with ‘Civic’ Development (Chair’s foreword section). · Page 4 – replace ‘2007 to 2009 period’ with ‘2027 to 2029 period’ (Chair’s foreword section). · Page 5 – replace 1 July ‘2027’ with 1 July ‘2026’ (introduction section).

Potential risks if Council does not provide shareholder feedback to the CCOs

17. If Council decides not provide shareholder feedback, there is a material risk that the final SoIs may not adequately reflect Council’s strategic priorities, performance expectations, or policy settings. This may result in:

· Misalignment with strategic direction – CCO work programmes may diverge from Council’s long‑term plans and community outcomes.

· Financial risk – inaccurate or unchallenged financial forecasts may compromise Council’s budgeting or funding decisions.

· Governance risk – Council may not meet its obligations under the LGA to provide oversight and ensure that CCOs operate efficiently, effectively, and in the interests of the community.

· Reduced accountability – without clear, Council‑endorsed expectations, performance monitoring may be weakened, making it more difficult for Council to hold CCOs to account over the next three financial years.

· Reputational risk – perception that Council has not provided adequate governance direction could undermine stakeholder and community confidence.

Potential risks relating to reduced levels of service and community impact

18. The reduced levels of service and associated impacts on the community, as identified in the draft SoIs and outlined above, will require both Council and the CCOs to work closely together and keep each other informed. The potential key risks include:

· Operational risk – service reductions may lead to performance shortfalls, deferred maintenance, reduced programme delivery, or delayed projects.

· Community impact – lower service levels could affect community wellbeing, customer satisfaction, access to services, and public trust in both the CCOs and Council.

· Escalation of issues – if reduced service levels are not closely monitored, minor issues may develop into larger operational or financial problems requiring future corrective action.

· Long‑term sustainability risk – prolonged service reductions may create backlogs or degrade asset condition, resulting in higher future costs.

Purpose of a Statement of Intent as per the Local Government Act 2002:

19. The legislative requirements are set out in Section 64 of the LGA. The legislation states that the purpose of a statement of intent is to:

a) state publicly the activities and intentions of the council-controlled organisation for the year and the objectives to which those activities will contribute; and

b) provide an opportunity for shareholders to influence the direction of the organisation; and

c) provide a basis for the accountability of the directors to their shareholders for the performance of the organisation.

20. In essence, an SoI sets out how a CCO intends to create increasing value for its customers and the ratepayers of Tauranga over the short to medium term. It provides the CCO board with a mechanism to publicly set out the entity’s strategic objectives and how it will achieve these over the next three financial years.

Council-controlled organisations’ core purpose:

21. The following table outlines the core purpose of each CCO:

Council-controlled organisation	Core purpose
Bay Venues Limited	To connect the community with exceptional experiences through hosting activities and events at community facilities across Tauranga including aquatic centres, indoor sport and fitness facilities, event venues, community centres and halls, and the Adams Centre for High Performance.
Tauranga Art Gallery Trust	To create and deliver exceptional art experiences that engage, inspire, challenge and educate visitors through exhibitions, public programmes and events.
Tourism Bay of Plenty	To lead the sustainable growth of the Western BoP visitor economy, the management of the region as a visitor destination, and the management of iSITE Visitor Information Centres at Tauranga, Mount Maunganui and the Port of Tauranga (during the cruise season only).
Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited	To govern the effective delivery of a suite of projects across Tauranga city centre, to benefit the whole community.
Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust	To own the land referred to as ‘Site A’ of the Te Manawataki o Te Papa civic precinct, and to provide certainty on how the land will be used in the future, so that everyone in the community benefits.
Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services	To foster collaboration in the delivery of shared services and joint procurement on behalf of the participating councils, maximising cost savings and developing opportunities for sharing of services.

Statutory Context

22. The Statement of Intent is one of the CCO’s key governance and planning documents.

23. Engaging with the CCOs throughout the development of the annual Statements of Intent is one of the main ways Council can influence its CCOs while ensuring they are aligned with Council’s strategic priorities and outcomes.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

24. The CCOs actively work in partnership with Council, mana whenua and our community to achieve the following community outcomes, and this is reflected in their SoIs and their performance against financial and non-financial measures:

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

25. Examples include providing leisure, arts, cultural, aquatic, and event services that foster connection and participation for people of all backgrounds, operating community facilities sustainably, supporting businesses to be more carbon-conscious, and aligning their work to Council’s action and investment plans.

Options Analysis

26. There is one issue to be considered and the advantages and disadvantages are outlined below:

Issue 1: To provide shareholder feedback on the draft SoIs

Option 1A (recommended): Receive the draft Statements of Intent FY27-29 and provide feedback to the Council-Controlled Organisations:

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Council meets its legislative requirements under the LGA by formally receiving the draft SoIs and providing feedback within the required timeframe.

· Providing feedback ensures CCOs understand Council priorities and performance expectations.

· Final SoIs are aligned with Council’s strategic direction and expectations.

· Demonstrates to the public that Council is actively guiding CCOs toward the same strategic outcomes.

· Feedback allows CCOs to make timely changes before final SoIs are adopted.

· Early engagement fosters stronger relationship between Council and CCOs.

· None.

Option 1B: Receive the draft Statements of Intent FY27-29 and do not provide feedback to the Council-Controlled Organisations:

Advantages

Disadvantages

· None.

· Council doesn’t meet its legislative requirements under the LGA.

· Final SoIs may contain inaccurate information, be misaligned with Council’s strategic direction and expectations, and may result in wasted resources or duplication of effort.

· Public might perceive Council as not fulfilling its stewardship/governance role.

Financial Considerations

27. Budgets for all CCOs, including Council’s contributions, are included in the draft SoIs.

Legal Implications / Risks

28. There are no legal implications with this report and the draft SoIs.

29. The risks if Council does not provide shareholder feedback and the risks relating to the potential of reduced LoS and community impact, are outlined above in the Background section.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

30. Te Ao Māori approach is important to the CCOs and are included in their draft SoIs.

31. For example, TMoTPL is committed to continue working with representatives of the Otamataha Trust, who act as Cultural Advisor to the Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited Civic Development Advisory Group.

CLIMATE IMPACT

32. Climate issues are important to the CCOs and are included in their draft SoIs.

33. For example, Bay Venues is committed to reducing energy consumption across the network of facilities.

Consultation / Engagement

34. It is not required or expected to consult on a Statement of Intent under the LGA.

Significance

35. 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.

36. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

38. Taking into consideration the above assessment, the draft SoIs, the advantages and disadvantages outlined above, the feedback from the Elected Member CCO Working Groups and key TCC staff, and that the decision is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

39. A copy of this report and the resolutions will be provided to each CCO by 1 May 2026.

40. Any feedback provided in this report should be given consideration by the CCO Boards when producing their final SoIs.

41. The final SoIs are to be provided to Council by 30 June 2026, and will be formally received at the Council meeting scheduled on 21 July 2026.

Attachments

1. BV Draft SoI FY27-29 - A19861808 (Separate Attachments 1)

2. TAGT - Draft SoI FY27-29 - A19861810 (Separate Attachments 1)

3. TBoP - Draft SoI FY27-29 - A19861817 (Separate Attachments 1)

4. TMoTPL - Draft SoI FY27-29 - A19889429 (Separate Attachments 1)

5. BoPLASS - Draft SoI FY27-29 - A19861825 (Separate Attachments 1)

6. BoPLASS - Letter to TCC re Draft SoI - A19861829 (Separate Attachments 1)

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

21 April 2026

11.5 Council-Controlled Organisations: Bay Venues Limited and Tourism Bay of Plenty funding requests

File Number: A20003137

Author: Caroline Lim, CCO Specialist

Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

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

Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.

Public Excluded Attachment	Reason why Public Excluded
Item 11.5 - Council-Controlled Organisations: Bay Venues Limited and Tourism Bay of Plenty funding requests - Attachment 4 - TBoP - Digital Wayfinding Network Operations - Issues and Options	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. To decide on funding requests recommended to Council by Bay Venues Limited and Tourism Bay of Plenty, and the associated rates implications for inclusion in the Annual Plan FY27.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Council-Controlled Organisations: Bay Venues Limited and Tourism Bay of Plenty funding requests".

Bay Venues Limited (Attachment 1 of this report – Bay Venues funding request)

(b) Approves a request of re-allocation of renewal funding to operating funding of $271,000 (FY27) to ensure the planned annual facility painting programme continues.

(d) Approves a net annual rates impact of $61,138 arising from a request of re-allocation of $365,000 (one-off amount) from renewal funding to operating funding to replace end of life Leisure Management System. This will be debt funded over the life of the asset.

Tourism Bay of Plenty (Attachment 2 of this report – Our Tauranga Place Brand Project)

(e) Approves a request of $450,000 (bridging year FY27 funding) contribution towards the implementation of the Our Tauranga Place Brand project.

Tourism Bay of Plenty (Attachment 3 of this report – iSITE Visitor Services Capital Expenditure)

(f) Approves a request towards improving the effectiveness, visibility and reach of the current iSITE visitor service programme through:

(i) $150,000 contribution to iSITE fitout at the Te Manawataki o Te Papa site; and

(ii) $85,000 for the new build of a versatile, mobile iSITE caravan.

Tourism Bay of Plenty (Attachment 4 of this report – Digital Wayfinding Network Operations)

(g) Approves a request for $93,000 funding per annum towards managing the ongoing development of the city’s digital visitor kiosk network and associated visitor and emergency information systems.

(h) Attachment 4 can be transferred into the open once all those directly affected by the matters covered by the decision have been appropriately informed.

Executive Summary

2. This report covers a number of matters raised by Bay Venues Limited (Bay Venues) and Tourism Bay of Plenty (TBoP) that will have budget implications for the Annual Plan FY27.

3. Each identified matter where a clear decision is required by Tauranga City Council (Council) has been covered in separately attached issues and options papers to this report. These issues and options papers include financial considerations relevant to the specific matter.

4. The recommendations made by the Chief Executive of each council-controlled organisation (CCO) within each issues and options paper have been brought forward into the above recommended resolutions for Council’s consideration. Note Attachment 4 can be transferred to open once all affected parties have been informed of Council’s decision. Council may alternatively select a different option from within the issues and options paper or craft its own resolution.

5. This is a compilation report. While two authors are identified above, the attachments to this report and associated recommendations have been prepared by Bay Venues and TBoP.

Background

6. Council’s elected members provided direction to the CCO’s through the Letter of Expectation process to present a budget with no net request for rates increases. At that time the elected members position was that the CCO’s could present any requests for increased funding through the draft Annual Plan submission process. As the Council subsequently decided not to proceed with a public consultation process, the CCO’s have submitted additional funding requests directly to Council through this report.

7. In Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4, Bay Venues and TBoP have outlined the background and context on the request for funding.

8. Attachment 5 provides the floor plan for TBoP’s iSITE Visitor Services as part of the Te Manawataki o Te Papa Civic Precinct.

9. From Bay Venues’ perspective, their request for funding is necessary to achieve a breakeven budget for FY27.

10. From TBoP’s perspective, their request is critical to successful destination management.

11. To continue meeting the expectations and strategic direction of its shareholder, both CCOs are seeking clarity and certainty regarding funding for each of these matters.

12. Further information on these six matters is provided in the attachments to this report.

Statutory Context

13. Section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that Council “must, in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a matter, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter”. Section 78 further states that Council “is not required by this section alone to undertake any consultation process or procedure”.

14. The matters covered by this report and the attachments are considered to be ones where Council will be individually and collectively able to give consideration to the likely views and preferences of affected and interested parties without conducting formal consultation.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

15. Where appropriate, relevant strategic context is provided in the individual attachments, and the various matters covered by the attachments contribute to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

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

Options Analysis

16. Please refer to the options provided in each issues and options paper attached to this report (Attachments 1-4).

Financial Considerations

17. Financial considerations are provided for each issue in Attachments 1-4 of this report.

18. The following table outlines each request and its impact on rates and debt:

Matter	Recommended CCO option ($)	Funding source	Rates impact ($)	Debt impact ($)
Facility painting	271,000	Rates	271,000 (FY27)	0
QEYC operations	46,390	Rates	46,390 per annum	0
Leisure Management System	365,000	Loan/Rates	61,138 per annum	365,000
Brand implementation	450,000	Rates	450,000 (FY27)	0
iSITE capital expenditure	235,000	Rates	235,000 (FY27)	0
Digital wayfinding network operations	93,000	Rates	93,000 per annum	0
Total			1,156,528	365,000

Legal Implications / Risks

19. Any legal implications or risks are identified in the attachments to this report.

20. The Statutory Context section above has consideration of the Local Government Act 2002 requirements for decision-making.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

21. Where applicable, the attachments to this report address matters relevant to Council’s Te Ao Māori approach.

CLIMATE IMPACT

22. Where applicable, the attachments to this report address matters relevant to Council’s climate impact.

Consultation / Engagement

23. There has been no specific pre-engagement with the community on any of the matters covered by the attachments to this report.

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 decision.

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

ENGAGEMENT

27. Taking into consideration the above assessment, the information provided in the attachments, and that the decision is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

28. For each matter covered by this report, TCC and CCO staff will action the resolutions made by Council.

Attachments

1. BV - Funding requests - Issues and Options - A20105791 ⇩

2. TBoP - Our Tauranga Place Brand Project - Issues and Options - A20099711 ⇩

3. TBoP - iSITE Visitor Services Capital Expenditure - Issues and Options - A20099712 ⇩

4. TBoP - Digital Wayfinding Network Operations - Issues and Options - A20099714 - Public Excluded

5. TBoP - iSITE floor plan - A20107619 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

21 April 2026

11.6 Long-term Plan 2027-2037 - Project Plan

File Number: A19836770

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

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

Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.

Public Excluded Attachment	Reason why Public Excluded
Item 11.6 - Long-term Plan 2027-2037 - Project Plan - Attachment 4 - Confidential List of emerging issues for the LTP 2027-2037	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

Purpose of the Report

1. This report seeks to meet one of the Chief Executive’s KPIs set by Council to provide a detailed timeline for the Long-term Plan 2027-2037 by the end of quarter three in 2025/26.

Recommendations

That the Council:

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

(b) Endorses Attachments 3 and 4 (confidential) as the initial schedule of issues to be considered through the Long-term Plan 2027-2037. Notes that items will be added to or removed from the schedule through the Long-Term Plan development process.

Executive Summary

2. The Long-term Plan (LTP) is the most significant planning and decision-making process for the mayor and councillors for their term of council. It sets out what Tauranga City Council will do over the next 10 years and how we’ll pay for it. This includes everything from major infrastructure projects to the services we provide every day. The project budget is $285,789.

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

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

5. This report and its attachments provide the mayor and councillors a high-level overview of the standard LTP process and a detailed timeline that starts from now and runs through to June 2027.

Background

6. Council is required to prepare a long-term plan (“LTP”) every three years. The purpose^{^[5]} of the LTP is to:

a) describe the activities of the local authority; and

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

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

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

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

7. The LTP covers ten years and also incorporates an infrastructure strategy with a 30-year timeframe.

8. The LTP brings together a large number of processes and topics and requires content input from all Council activities. Coordinating this, including providing appropriate content to the mayor and councillors for direction-setting and decision-making is a significant task. Some workstreams have been underway for a few months, others commence later in the process.

9. This report continues on from the report to Council from 18 November 2025 which outlined the high-level process that an LTP takes over its creation. This report can be found at: https://infocouncil.tauranga.govt.nz/Open/2025/11/CO_20251118_AGN_2765_AT.PDF

10. Attachment 1 to this report includes the project plan for the LTP 2027-2037 which outlines the four phases this LTP will go through in its creation and when these phases are likely to occur.

11. Attachment 2 gives a high-level month by month breakdown from now till June 2027 of when each of the content and process pieces of the LTP identified in the 18 November 2025 report are currently scheduled to occur.

12. Attachment 2 also provides the dates for when all eight workshops relating to the LTP have been booked with mayor and councillors from May 2026 to December 2026. Additional workshops may be required and will be scheduled based on elected member direction on specific matters for which workshops are an appropriate approach to consider issues.

13. Attachment 3 and 4 include a schedule of issues to be considered through the 2027-37 LTP. The issues in this staff complied list are over and above the usual approach of Strategy Stocktake (including AIP review), Asset Management Plan reviews, Activity Area Plan reviews.

14. The issues identified in the attached lists are topic specific matters that are likely to progress to issues and options papers over the course of the development of the LTP. The intent is that these lists are also a live document that gets updated as issues are identified. Where appropriate workshops will be scheduled to address specific issues.

Mayor and Councillors LTP direction

15. As identified above there are currently eight scheduled workshops starting in May 2026 going to December 2026. The dates are identified in Attachment 2.

16. The first workshop will aim to present some background of the environment that the LTP will be formed in. The discussion will then be asking mayor and councillors to think about what type of LTP that they want the organisation to deliver for them. The two key areas which staff wish to focus the discussion on will be:

· The financial strategy for developing the LTP

· What do the mayor and councillors want to achieve in this LTP

17. Also to note in Attachment 2 is the timeline for when key decisions need to be made in regard to the draft long-term plan. It should be noted that there will be key decisions required from the mayor and councillors on the LTP at Council’s meeting on 1 December 2026 and then also the first meeting of the year in February 2027. It is critical that decisions are made at these meetings in order for the project to meet the audit and statutory deadlines of this project.

Statutory Context

18. Legislative issues are considered in the Background section to this report.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	ü
We are a well-planned city 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

20. The LTP seeks to enable Council to achieve its community outcomes.

Options Analysis

21. This report has no options for Council to consider.

Financial Considerations

22. This report has no financial implications.

Legal Implications / Risks

23. This report has no other legal implications or risks.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

24. The LTP process does not affect TCC’s ambitions to align with the Te Ao Māori approach. However, future funding decisions in the process may have an impact on individual projects or programmes that are specifically working towards fulfilling the approach. Council staff will connect with the Rangapu through the LTP development process where appropriate.

CLIMATE IMPACT

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

Consultation / Engagement

26. An engagement approach and programme will be one of the key aspects of the LTP programme of work.

27. The mayor and councillors will be further involved in the development of that approach and programme over coming months.

28. The LTP consultation document will be formally consulted on in March/April 2027.

Significance

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. The matter of the LTP and its contents have a high degree of significance. However, the decision to receive this report and the project plan (Attachment 1) and outline month by month work programme (Attachment 2) is of low significance as they are predominantly procedural and work is already underway.

ENGAGEMENT

32. 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

33. Work will continue or commence on each of the phases and workstreams included in Attachments 1 and 2. Workshops and formal Council and Committee meetings will be scheduled to bring these LTP workstreams to the mayor and councillors for direction-setting and decision-making throughout 2026.

34. Emerging issues identified in Attachments 3 and 4 will progress to workshops, discussion papers and/or issues and options papers to Council between now and December 2026.

Attachments

1. Project Management Plan - 2027-37 Long-term Plan - A19864889 ⇩

2. 2026-27 Month by Month View of LTP 2027-37 - A19864886 ⇩

3. List of emerging issues for the LTP 2027-2037 - A19871457 ⇩

4. Confidential List of emerging issues for the LTP 2027-2037 - A19872488 - Public Excluded

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

21 April 2026

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

File Number: A17659688

Author: Radleigh Cairns, Manager: Drainage Services

Jennifer Ross, Policy Analyst

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To approve the draft Trade Waste Bylaw 2026 and Statement of Proposal for consultation.

Recommendations

That the Council:

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

(b) Notes the Bylaw Review Plan for Trade Waste 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 Trade Waste Bylaw (Attachment Two) and the Statement of Proposal (Attachment Three) for community consultation.

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

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council’s Trade Waste Bylaw (Trade Waste Bylaw) was first adopted in 2004 and was last reviewed in 2019. The bylaw aims to protect the wastewater network by regulating the discharge of contaminants, ensuring it protects public health and the environment from the effects of trade waste discharges, manages the capacity of the wastewater network, and enables compliance with Tauranga City Council’s resource consents relating to the discharges associated with wastewater. The bylaw empowers the council to require treatment works, charge for additional demand on wastewater treatment plant, monitor discharges, enforce consents (now called permits under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 (Act)), and impose penalties for breaches.

3. This review of the Trade Waste Bylaw has been completed in accordance with the Act which came into effect on 27 August 2025.

4. The power to make a Trade Waste Bylaw remains with Tauranga City Council under the Act, regardless of whether the wastewater services it relates to are provided directly by Tauranga City Council or a separate entity.

5. The Act requires that Tauranga City Council undertake a review of the bylaw and develop a Bylaw Review Plan. It is proposed that this bylaw review be completed in accordance with the Bylaw Review Plan for Trade Waste Bylaw (Attachment One).

6. The updated bylaw will strengthen trade waste operations now and into the future. It also supports continuity in how we deliver trade waste and wastewater services during any transition to a new water organisation.

7. Processing trade waste through the wastewater network and treatment plants incurs higher costs than domestic waste, yet under the current bylaw, only the largest contributors pay trade waste fees, resulting in domestic users subsidising business waste processing. To promote fairer cost allocation, the proposed bylaw introduces a new “controlled discharges” category, requiring businesses with higher volumes of permitted trade waste to obtain permits and pay fees that help recover the associated processing and administration costs (clauses 5 and 6.1 of the draft bylaw). The permit fees form part of the User Fees and Charges Review which is currently under public consultation.

8. A number of other trade waste management challenges and opportunities have also been identified through this review therefore the following changes are proposed to address these, including:

(a) Updating terminology for consistency with the Act, for example, using the term water service provider^{^[6]} and replacing consents with permits (clause 5 definitions).

(b) Introducing provisions to administer the permit process, including applications, granting, renewing, reviewing, transferring, terminating and transitioning from consents to permits (clauses 7 to 12 and 17).

(d) Being more prescriptive about pre-treatment requirements and mass limits on trade waste discharges (clause 15).

(e) Providing clarity on sampling, analysis and monitoring of trade waste discharges (clause 16).

(f) Strengthening requirements for reporting of accidents and responses to them and incorporating infringement offences, to encourage compliance with the bylaw, in accordance with section 269 of the Act (clause 18).

(g) Updating provisions for prescribing and recovering fees and charges to reference both the Act and continuing Local Government Act 2002 requirements (clause 19).

(h) Empowering the use of compliance orders under the Act (clause 20).

(i) Updating the technical schedules to reflect current best practice and industry standards (Schedules).

9. Based on the proposed classification of trade waste discharges into four categories, a revised fee structure for Trade Waste permits and discharges is proposed. Introducing a more equitable, graduated user-pays approach. If adopted following consultation, this new structure and associated fees are projected to generate additional revenue from controlled discharge permits - approximately $130,000 in 2027, increasing to $210,000 in 2028 and $300,000 in 2029. While these changes will improve cost recovery for managing Trade Waste, they will also have a financial impact on smaller businesses that currently do not contribute to the costs associated with assessing and monitoring their trade waste discharges and treatment devices.

10. Emerging contaminants, including persistent organic pollutants such as PFAS^{^[7]}, can persist in the environment and accumulate in biosolids if discharges are not controlled. The draft bylaw strengthens requirements for managing trade waste that includes these substances to support continuing consent compliance, and future-proof the safe disposal and beneficial reuse of the biosolids produced through the wastewater treatment process.

11. Staff feedback indicates that updates in the bylaw will require new pre-treatment for some trade waste discharges, potentially driving capital upgrades over time for some businesses and council operations.

12. The Council are asked to adopt the proposed draft Trade Waste Bylaw for consultation using the special consultative procedure, as required by the Act.

13. If the Council decides to adopt the draft Trade Waste Bylaw (Attachment Two) and Statement of Proposal (Attachment Three), the consultation will be carried out in May 2026. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, hearings, deliberations and the date of adoption of the Trade Waste Bylaw, staged implementation of the bylaw is targeted to commence August 2026.

Background

14. Tauranga City Council is responsible for ensuring that the wastewater network is managed in a way that meets our regional consent conditions, protects the environment and maintains public health and safety. Trade Waste Bylaw provisions help to manage discharges into the wastewater network by regulating potential pollutants and protecting wastewater assets from damage or exceeding wastewater treatment plant capacity to comply with our regional consent conditions.

15. Trade Waste Bylaw provisions also help to manage the potential pollutants in the biosolid residuals that are produced through wastewater treatment. The biosolid residuals are disposed of cost effectively through vermicomposting and then land application. In 2025 Water New Zealand released updated Guidelines for Beneficial Reuse of Biosolids on Land^{^[8]} which signalled concerns about emerging contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants and noted “implications for contamination of biosolids if such discharges are not controlled”.

16. Under the Act, Tauranga City Council retains the power to make waters bylaws for this city, however the wastewater services will be delivered by a water services provider, which may be either Tauranga City Council directly or through a separate water services organisation. Regardless of who the water service provider is, bylaw provisions help to manage the public wastewater network by regulating potential pollutants and protecting public wastewater assets from damage or misuse.

17. As part of the transition of water services and associated bylaws to the Act, sections 263(4)(d) and 263(6) of the Act require that a Bylaw Review Plan be developed. The draft Bylaw Review Plan for Trade Waste Bylaw (Attachment One) has been prepared for compliance with the Act and provides details and dates of the steps for completing this review process.

18. The updated bylaw is designed to ensure trade waste discharges into Tauranga City Council’s wastewater network remain managed in accordance with new legislative requirements, regardless of future changes to water service delivery structures.

19. Our review involved input from internal business units including Water Drainage Services, City Waters Planning, Waste Operations and Compliance, and Takawaenga Māori Unit. Additionally, we emailed businesses that have had a Trade Waste consent or inspection to request input into the review and met with the Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana policy subcommittee (Te Rangapū policy subcommittee).

Bylaw issues

20. The review process was initiated to address key issues with:

(a) the allocation and recovery of costs for processing trade waste through the wastewater network, and

(b) alignment with current industry best practices for managing trade waste discharges.

21. Processing trade waste through the wastewater network and wastewater treatment plants is more expensive than processing domestic waste. Under the current bylaw, only the businesses that produce the highest volume and load of trade waste discharges are paying trade waste fees. In effect, domestic users are subsidising businesses for the cost of processing their trade waste through the wastewater network.

22. To more fairly share the cost of processing trade waste, it is proposed that discharges of higher volumes of permitted trade waste will be part of a new category of discharges called “controlled discharges” and businesses will be required to obtain a permit to make controlled discharges. Subject to the User Fees and Charges Review in 2026, a fee may be set to help recover the costs associated with these controlled trade waste discharges.

23. Through the review process, the other identified issues with the bylaw include:

(a) outdated legislative references with the introduction of the Act

(b) challenges with recovering the increased costs of monitoring and inspecting business sites

(d) delayed or incomplete reporting of accidents and breaches.

24. The opportunities associated with this review of the bylaw include:

(a) updating the approach to classification and management of trade waste discharges for industry best practice

(b) enabling fairer allocation of the costs of processing trade waste to the businesses discharging trade waste

(c) future proofing the disposal of biosolid residuals from wastewater treatment by addressing emerging contaminants, specifically persistent organic pollutants such as PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances) that have been identified as a concern in recent updates to guidelines, to ensure cost effective disposal of biosolids can continue

(d) incorporating the newly legislated powers to issue:

(i) trade waste permits,

(ii) compliance orders, and

(iii) infringement notices

(e) acknowledging the relationship between the strategies Tauranga City Council has developed in collaboration with tangata whenua and how trade waste is managed to ensure the quality of wastewater discharges into the environment.

Proposed changes to bylaw

25. A number of changes to the bylaw are proposed to address the issues identified through the review and ensure alignment with best practice. Those changes are incorporated into the draft Trade Waste Bylaw (Attachment Two). The details of change from the three category consent process to the four category permit process are highlighted in Table One. An overview of the changes to the bylaw is presented in Table Two.

Table One: Change to Permitted Categories

Current Bylaw

Draft Bylaw

Council Consents Issued

Trade Waste Permits Issued

Three categories of Trade Waste:

1. Permitted (no consent required) Includes discharges that have permitted characteristics.

2. Conditional (consent required) Includes discharges with high flow or high loading above the allowed discharge characteristics that put additional pressure on the network and treatment plant processes.

3. Prohibited (never consent) Any discharge that may cause harm to the wastewater network, staff, be toxic to fish, animals or plant life after treatment or cause breaches of resource consents.

Four categories of Trade Waste Discharges:

1. Allowed (no permit required) Includes discharges that have permitted characteristics and are in low volumes.

2. Controlled (permit required) Includes discharges with characteristics that require pre-treatment such as grease traps and wastewater interceptors to manage impact on the network. E.g. restaurants and those with wash bays.

3. Conditional (permit required) Includes discharges with high flow or high loading above the allowed discharge characteristics that put additional pressure on the network and treatment plant processes.

4. Prohibited (never permit) Any discharge that may cause harm to the wastewater network, staff, be toxic to fish, animals or plant life after treatment or cause breaches of resource consents.

Table Two: Key Proposed Changes to the Trade Waste Bylaw

Proposed Change	Reason
Change references from the Local Government Act 2002 to the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 as applicable.	The Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 came into force on 27 August 2025.
Update clause 4. Reframe the purpose of the bylaw.	To better reflect how this bylaw aligns with Tauranga City Council strategies, includes industry best practice for trade waste management and encourages a proactive approach to protecting our wastewater network. Responding to feedback received from stakeholders.
Modify clause 5. Insert and update definitions.	To align with current practice, define new discharge categories, and the terminology of the Act. For example, referring to a water service provider which may be either Tauranga City Council or a separate organisation.
Modify clauses 5 and 6.1. Classification of discharges.	To enable fairer allocation of the costs of processing trade waste through the wastewater network using a more graduated classification system for trade waste discharges and utilising the introduction of permits under the Act. Table One details this change.
Insert clauses 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17. Modify clauses 11 and 12. Permit administration.	To introduce provisions to administer the new permit process in accordance with the Act, including applications, granting, renewing, reviewing, transferring, terminating and transitioning from consents to permits.
Insert clause 13. Hazardous Materials.	To clarify requirements for the management of hazardous materials to protect the wastewater network.
Insert clause 14. Tankered Waste.	To clarify requirements for the management and discharge of tankered waste to protect the wastewater network.
Insert clause 15. Pre-treatment and mass limits.	To be more prescriptive about pre-treatment requirements and mass limits on trade waste discharges, encouraging cleaner production and protection of the wastewater network.
Insert clause 16. Monitoring.	To provide greater clarity about sampling, analysis and monitoring of trade waste discharges.
Insert clause 18.1. Accidents.	To encourage better reporting of accidents and responses to them.
Insert clause 18.3. Infringement offences.	To enable Tauranga City Council or the water service provider to issue infringement notices and fees, encouraging compliance with the bylaw, in accordance with section 269 of the Act.
Update clause 19. Fees and charges.	Updating provisions for better recovery of costs, fees and charges. To reference both the Act and continuing Local Government Act 2002 requirements.
Insert clause 20. Compliance orders.	To enable Tauranga City Council or the water service provider to serve compliance orders under section 297 of the Act.
Update Schedule One. Characteristics of Allowed Discharges.	Moved from the body of the bylaw and updated to reflect the refined classification categories for trade waste discharges and provide current description of the technical characteristics of allowed trade waste discharges.
Update Schedule Two. Characteristics of Prohibited Discharges.	Moved from the body of the bylaw. Updated to reflect current descriptions and technical characteristics of prohibited discharges.
Insert Schedule Three. Permit criteria and conditions.	To support transparency in the permit process. Including considerations and conditions to address persistent organic pollutants.

Statutory Context

26. The ability for Council to make a bylaw comes from legislation, this bylaw is made under section 258 of the Act. This new act directs territorial authorities to the Local Government Act 2002 in respect of the bylaw making process and consultation requirements.

27. The legislation requires that the special consultative procedure must be used when amending a bylaw unless the proposed changes are minor or are correcting errors.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

28. 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	☐

29. The bylaw aligns with three of the above community outcomes. It contributes to:

(a) valuing, protecting and enhancing the environment by ensuring that trade waste is managed to support an effective wastewater network;

(b) a well-planned city by setting the expectation that our trade waste is managed in accordance with trade waste and wastewater industry standards; and

(c) being a city that supports business by providing the framework for Tauranga City Council to work with businesses that operate using appropriate trade waste management methods to ensure effective wastewater treatment.

Options Analysis

30. The table below sets out the advantages and disadvantages of approving the proposed draft amended Trade Waste Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for consultation.

Table Three: Trade Waste Bylaw Options

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Approve the draft updated Trade Waste Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for community consultation.

Recommended

· Provides opportunity for wider community to give feedback on the draft Trade Waste Bylaw.

· Allows Council to continue to support trade waste management and protect the wastewater network.

· Responds to feedback received from key stakeholders, including Te Rangapū policy subcommittee.

· Meets obligations, in relation to wastewater, to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety, protect the local environment, and to comply with the conditions of our resource consents.

· Supports greater cost recovery from those that place higher demands on the wastewater network or do not comply with bylaw provisions.

· Ensures legal requirements of reviewing the bylaw are met.

· Resources will be used for the required consultation process.

· The costs to businesses producing trade waste will increase where they require a Permit under the new trade waste discharge category.

· The costs to trade waste dischargers may increase where they are required to introduce pre-treatment processes.

· The costs to trade waste dischargers that do not comply with bylaw provisions may increase.

· Bylaws under the Act are new and untested.

Retain the current bylaw and do not approve the draft updated Trade Waste Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for community consultation.

· No resources will need to be used for consultation.

· The draft Trade Waste Bylaw could be approved later if more analysis or research is required prior to approving a draft for consultation.

· Allows time to determine the future organisation for the delivery of wastewater services.

· Allows time for further development of scientific understanding and treatment technology for persistent organic pollutants.

· No amendments from the outcome of the review will be included.

· Potential improvements in cost recovery will be delayed.

· Delays the initial bylaw review which must be done by 26 August 2027 to meet statutory timeframes under the Act.

· Requires amendment of the Bylaw Review Plan for the Trade Waste Bylaw.

Financial Considerations

31. The costs of developing the bylaw will be funded from the existing policy and bylaws budget.

32. Subject to the outcomes of consultation, the proposed updates to the bylaw provide a more graduated approach to managing and charging for the costs associated with processing and managing trade waste from the businesses that making trade waste discharges into the wastewater network.

33. A new fee structure is also proposed in 2026 for Trade Waste permits and discharges to be more equitable by providing a more graduated user pays approach. Subject to the new fee structure being adopted following the User Fees and Charges Review, extra revenue from controlled discharge permits for the following financial years is expected to be in the vicinity of $130,000 in 2027, rising to $210,000 in 2028 and $300,000 in 2029. While better recovering the costs associated with managing Trade Waste, this will have a financial impact on smaller businesses who currently do not pay anything towards the costs of assessing and monitoring their trade waste discharges and treatment devices.

Legal Implications / Risks

34. The review of this bylaw is well within the statutory timeframes set under the Act which requires that the Trade Waste Bylaw be reviewed by 27 August 2027.

35. While there is always legal uncertainty complying with a new piece of legislation, the legal risk associated with this proposed Trade Waste Bylaw is generally the same as any bylaw. This includes the risk of the repeal of the empowering act.

36. As Tauranga City Council’s Water Services Strategy is still under development, there is a risk of misalignment with that strategy. However, any bylaw is at risk of requiring a review due to future strategic or political change.

37. There is a risk that the bylaw will be perceived negatively by businesses and the wider community as it imposes permit and compliance requirements and associated costs on them. This risk will be managed through effective engagement and consultation, together with an education approach to enforcement where reasonable.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

38. In our meetings with the Te Rangapū policy subcommittee the committee members identified a lack of recognition of tangata whenua voice and te ao Māori in the Trade Waste Bylaw 2019. Their feedback is summarised in the Report on Feedback Received from Te Rangapū policy subcommittee (Attachment Four). This feedback has been incorporated into the updated bylaw and further feedback may be provided during the public consultation process.

39. By its pollution prevention nature, the Trade Waste Bylaw supports Kaitiakitanga of the built environment (Taiaohanga) and the health of the wai and waterways. This support will be recognised in the updated bylaw by incorporating terminology that acknowledges it into the purpose clause.

40. The approach set out in the proposed draft bylaw aligns with the principles of Manaakitanga – a strong duty of care and safety for our people, keeping our wastewater network effective and ensuring the discharges from our wastewater network to the environment are safe, and Kaitiakitanga – stewardship of the natural environment, protecting it from contaminated wastewater discharges. Acknowledging the relationship between the strategies Tauranga City Council has developed in collaboration with tangata whenua and the way Tauranga City Council will protect our environment from contaminated wastewater discharges.

CLIMATE IMPACT

41. This bylaw supports the protection of wastewater infrastructure which contributes to Tauranga’s ability to be resilient to the changing weather conditions associated with a changing climate.

42. Broader climate adaptation efforts outlined in the Tauranga Climate Action & Investment Plan 2023-2033 include protecting wastewater infrastructure as part of Tauranga’s critical assets vulnerable to climate-induced hazards like flooding and coastal inundation. This emphasises the importance of resilient infrastructure planning, including wastewater networks, to manage risks from extreme weather events and changing rainfall patterns.

43. Ensuring that Trade Waste is discharged responsibly into Tauranga’s wastewater infrastructure prolongs the life and efficiency of these infrastructure assets.

Consultation / Engagement

44. As noted in paragraph 19, initial consultation and engagement has sought feedback from staff, mana whenua representatives, as well as many businesses in our community with existing trade waste consents or monitoring.

45. Given the technical nature of this bylaw, feedback from businesses and mana whenua representatives has been limited. These groups will have further opportunity to provide their insights on the Trade Waste Bylaw during the public consultation process which is required prior to the adoption of a bylaw.

46. Staff feedback on the draft Trade Waste Bylaw noted that it introduces new treatment requirements for trade waste prior to discharge into the wastewater network. To meet these standards, certain businesses and sections of council operations may need to invest in capital improvements to install appropriate treatment devices. Staff working on matters related to a closed landfill in the city have identified additional capital costs to enable the proposed treatment requirements for the leachate from that landfill.

Significance

47. 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.

48. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

50. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the matter is of medium significance, and the consultation requirement in the Act, consultation using the special consultative procedure is required.

Next Steps

51. Following your decision public consultation would commence in May 2026, with hearings and deliberations scheduled following this in June or July 2026.

Attachments

1. Bylaw Review Plan for Trade Waste Bylaw - A19106749 ⇩

2. Draft Trade Waste Bylaw 2026 - A20107378 ⇩

3. Draft Statement of Proposal - A19437749 ⇩

4. Report on Feedback from Te Rangapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana policy subcommittee - A19421968 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

21 April 2026

11.8 Ōmanawa Falls Reserve name change

File Number: A15393616

Author: Ana Hancock, Team Leader: Design

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To request approval to rename Ōmanawa Falls Reserve to Te Rere o Ōmanawa in accordance with Council’s Naming Policy 2020.

Recommendations

That the Council:

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

(b) Approves changing the official name for “Ōmanawa Falls Reserve” to “Te Rere o Ōmanawa”, supported by translation in any communications.

UPDATE SINCE THE LAST MEETING

2. This report was previously brought to this Council at the 7 October Council meeting. The report was left to lie on the table as Elected Members requested that Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism Bay of Plenty be in attendance. Since this meeting Staff has met with Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism Bay of Plenty and proposed a refined approach: that renaming Ōmanawa Falls Reserve is supported by a communications approach that presents the translation of Te Rere o Ōmanawa alongside the new name as we go through a period of transition.

3. To assist with Council decision making, this report has been edited to present three options for the Council to consider: (1) – Rename with a comms approach, (2) – Dual name, (3) No change to name.

Background

4. The Ōmanawa Falls Reserve is owned and managed by Tauranga City Council (“Council”) and lies within Western Bay of Plenty District, and within the rohe of Ngāti Hangarau.

5. Ōmanawa Falls Reserve is managed as a Heritage Reserve under the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan (TRMP), although is not formally classified as a reserve under the Reserves Act.

6. Council has been working closely with Ngāti Hangarau on the Ōmanawa Falls Safe Access project since 2019. The three streams of this project included providing physically and culturally safe public access to the falls, supporting the development of a cultural tourism experience and working towards co-management and/or co-governance. All three streams are guided by the Ōmanawa Principles (provided in Attachment 1). The Ōmanawa Principles were developed by Ngāti Hangarau in 2020 with support from Council’s Pou Takawaenga team and first shared with Council at the 27 October meeting in 2020.

7. The Ōmanawa Falls Governance Group, made up of Ngāti Hangarau, Tourism Bay of Plenty and Council recommend that Ōmanawa Falls Reserve is renamed as Te Rere o Ōmanawa which is supported by the Ōmanawa Principles. ‘Ōmanawa’ translates into English as ‘of the heart’, and the full name means ‘the waterfall of the heart’.

Strategic / Statutory Context

8. Council adopted a revised Naming Policy in May 2020. The policy encourages locally significant Māori names for streets, reserves, community facilities and other public places in Tauranga and to enable greater visibility of mana whenua connections to Tauranga. Since adoption of the policy, Council staff have placed greater emphasis on identifying and promoting historically and culturally significant names in our public places.

9. Council’s Naming Policy allows for the renaming of existing reserves where a new name would better meet the objectives of the policy to promote local identity and mana whenua connections. Council is responsible for all decisions to approve or decline requests to rename or dual name existing streets, reserves, community facilities and other public places.

10. Appropriately recognising known cultural values is included in the mission statement of the Tauranga Reserve Management Plan which has management statements for Ōmanawa Falls Reserve.

DISCUSSION

Significance of Ōmanawa Falls to Ngāti Hangarau

11. The name for the falls existed before European arrival, the development of the hydro power station and the creation of the reserve.

12. The Ōmanawa Falls are of particular importance to Ngāti Hangarau as explained in ‘Significance of Ōmanawa Falls - Excerpts from a statement prepared by Ngāti Hangarau offered as evidence for the resource consent hearing for the Ōmanawa Falls project’ (Attachment 2). In summary, Ōmanawa means of the heart. Unlike some of the other waterfalls in the rohe, Ōmanawa Falls were a sign of good luck and were a place for fortune telling and for healing, as such the waterfall and the pool of water below are recognised by Ngāti Hangarau as wāhi tapu.

13. Ngāti Hangarau have provided the name Te Rere o Ōmanawa for use on the site signage (as well as te reo names for viewing platforms and the like). Renaming the Ōmanawa Falls Reserve to Te Rere o Ōmanawa, and the use of other Mana Whenua names is supported by the Ōmanawa Principles (Section 2):

2. WHAKAPAPA: NAMES & NAMING

i) Restoration of Mana Whenua names at Ōmanawa, acknowledging significant sites, whenua/waterways and heritage including historic networks, interactions and relationships.

ii) Mātauranga ā hapū acknowledged. - Inspiration for names is drawn from Ngāti Hangarau knowledge base and systems.

iii) Education to support the uptake of mātauranga ā hapū. - Names, whakapapa and heritage education will be supported with resource/content creation onsite at Ōmanawa, online and in the wider community.

Why renaming is proposed instead of dual naming

14. Renaming the reserve is proposed for the following reasons:

(a) Ōmanawa Falls was originally a te reo name which was then anglicised. Renaming Ōmanawa Falls Reserve to Te Rere o Ōmanawa reverts to the original name however will continue to be recognisable to the local community as the Ōmanawa name is retained in both versions.

(b) The Ōmanawa Falls Safe Access Project has created a space with a strong cultural presence, with pouwhenua, a tomokanga and palisade fencing. The signage also has a distinctive cultural presence, with te reo names for each of the three lookouts. Renaming the reserve to Te Rere o Ōmanawa is in keeping with the look and feel of the site.

(c) Te Rere o Ōmanawa has already been in use on site signage, the council webpage and in media releases. Officially changing the name will formalise this existing use.

(d) The reserve has not had a long-standing relationship with the community. Up until about 2011 the reserve and the Falls themselves were not well known with the exception of the immediate Ōmanawa community and adventurous tourists. The reserve was closed in January 2016 and reopened on 1 December 2023.

(e) Under the naming policy (section 5.3.3) dual naming may be preferable in some circumstances to maintain local identity. In this case it is considered that the local identity for the reserve as a reserve is not high, as outlined above.

15. The Ōmanawa Falls Governance Group considers that renaming the reserve supports Mana Whenua connections and does not diminish local identity.

16. The Naming Policy specifies that the naming of heritage reserves will reflect the historical significance of the area. Renaming Ōmanawa Falls Reserve to Te Rere o Ōmanawa is considered to enhance those historic values.

17. It is proposed that renaming Ōmanawa Falls Reserve is supported by a communications approach that presents the translation of Te Rere o Ōmanawa alongside the new name as we go through a period of transition. For example, in all communications such as on webpages, social media posts etc the name can be communicated as follows: Te Rere o Ōmanawa (Ōmanawa Falls Reserve). At the point where there is wide take up of the name, the translation can be dropped without needing to go through a formal renaming process. This may only be a few years, or may take a generation.

18. It was raised in the previous Council meeting that there were concerns from some in the community about the proposed name change. To be clear, the proposed name change affects only the name of the Council owned property. The name of the falls is outside of Council’s jurisdiction. In order to rename the waterfall, an application needs to be made to the New Zealand Geographic Board. This would require a letter of support from the Western Bay District Council. If the NZ Geographic Board accept the proposal, they will it publicly notify it allowing one month for the public to make submissions. If approved by the NZ Geographic Board, the Minister for Land Information makes the final decision.

19. Ngāti Hangarau have advised that they intend to apply to the New Zealand Geographic Board to rename the waterfall. The Governance Group has offered to provide a letter of support to Ngāti Hangarau as part of their application and provide any other assistance as required. The Council may also wish to lend their support to Ngāti Hangarau in seeking this name change.

OPTIONS ANALYSIS

20. Three options are presented:

Option 1 (Recommended)

(a) Rename Ōmanawa Falls Reserve to Te Rere o Ōmanawa, and support with a communications approach that presents the translation of Te Rere o Ōmanawa alongside the new name.

Option 2

(b) Dual name Ōmanawa Falls Reserve to Te Rere o Ōmanawa – Ōmanawa Falls Reserve.

Option 3

Options	Pros	Cons
Option 1 Rename supported with a comms approach for translation	Best meets Mana Whenua objectives and addresses Elected Members concerns around causing confusion for visitors. Is in alignment with current signage and approach taken with comms
Option 2 Dual name Ōmanawa Falls Reserve to Te Rere o Ōmanawa – Ōmanawa Falls Reserve	Provides both names in perpetuity	Less desirable for Mana Whenua
Option 3 Do not rename Ōmanawa Falls Reserve		Does not meet Mana Whenua objectives

significance / Engagement

21. Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism Bay of Plenty have been engaged in the renaming proposal for Te Rere o Ōmanawa and provide their full support.

22. Western Bay Council have also provided a letter of support for the name change which is included in Attachment 3.

23. Councils Naming Policy was adopted on 5 May 2020 following a public and stakeholder engagement process.

24. Further consultation and engagement with the wider public is not required as per clause 5.1.2 of the Naming Policy:

“In order to recognise the significance of names provided by mana whenua, Council does not consult on names proposed by mana whenua for the purposes of obtaining wider community approval.”

25. Renaming Ōmanawa Falls to Te Rere o Ōmanawa does not meet the test of significance in the Significance and Engagement Policy requiring consultation. While it is of medium significance, due to the reasons outlined in paragraph 14 above, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

26. If approved, the name Te Rere o Ōmanawa will be formally recognised on supporting documents and records. The new name will be supported by the translation of the name for the next few years and as long as required.

27. The Ōmanawa Falls Governance Group and potentially Council will support Ngāti Hangarau with their planned application to the New Zealand Geographic Board to officially rename the waterfall to Te Rere o Ōmanawa.

Attachments

1. Omanawa Principles - A15459791 ⇩

2. Significance of Omanawa Falls - Excerpts from Ngati Hangarau Statement - A15459792 ⇩

3. Letter of Support for name change from Western Bay - A18767046 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

21 April 2026

11.9 Papakāinga housing funding support

File Number: A20098854

Author: Keren Paekau, Team Leader: Takawaenga Māori

Anne Payne, Principal Strategic Advisor

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

Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.

Public Excluded Attachment	Reason why Public Excluded
Item 11.9 - Papakāinga housing funding support - Attachment 2 - Papakāinga projects overview - 31 March 2026	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 11.9 - Papakāinga housing funding support - Attachment 3 - Papakāinga projects map - 31 March 2026	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.

Purpose of the Report

1. To confirm Council’s approach to distribution of the Papakāinga Fund, which aims to help reduce barriers to papakāinga housing development on multiple-owned Māori land.

2. The proposed approach has implications for the Grant Fund for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Housing.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Papakāinga housing funding support".

(b) Approves distribution of the Papakāinga Fund as follows (Option 1A):

(i) Eligibility criteria to include threshold eligibility (meets definition of papakainga of Development Contributions grants policy, located in Tauranga City Council boundaries, appropriate governance arrangements and commitments, multi-dwelling project at detailed planning and consent stage), readiness to progress, readiness to build, funding use planning and resource consent services (including land use resource consent costs for enabling works & infrastructure); engineering and technical investigations; surveying and geotechnical work and reporting requirements.

(ii) Process to include an Expression on Interest (April / May 2026), staff Assessment Panel, with recommendations from Assessment Panel considered and decided on by the General Manager Strategy, Partnerships and Growth.

(iii) Any remaining balance being unallocated from the Papakainga Fund will rollover to the following financial year.

(iv) Release of the second tranche of the Papakāinga Fund budget, being a further $200,000, for the 2026/27 financial year, to be applied in accordance with resolutions (b)(i) to (b) (iii) above.

(i) Transfer budget to the Papakāinga Fund on an as-needed basis, ensuring an acceptable balance remains in the Grant Fund for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Housing to meet its purpose.

(ii) Reduce the proportion of development contributions funded from 100% to 50-75% (level to be determined subsequent to engagement process).

(iii) Receive an annual outcome and process review undertaken by council staff to ensure the aims of both funds are being achieved, and to improve the process over time.

(iv) Notes that staff will update the Grants for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Housing Policy, including undertaking appropriate engagement, for consideration and approval by Council or the City Future Committee by 30 June 2026.

(d) Delegates financial authority to the Chief Operating and Financial Officer (COFO) to transfer the budget from the Grant Fund for Development Contributions on Papakainga Housing to the Papakainga Fund (on advice from the GM: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth).

[Resolution only required if (c)(i) approved]

(e) Notes that staff will provide options for continuation or otherwise of both funds (Papakāinga Fund and Grant Fund for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Housing) for Council consideration during the Long-term Plan 2027-2037 development process.

(f) Notes that should the Papakāinga Fund continue post-2026/27, a guiding framework or policy will be developed by 1 July 2027 to ensure a structured and transparent approach to the fair distribution of this fund.

(g) Attachment 2 is to remain in the public excluded section as it contains confidential financial and other information relating to other parties.

(h) Attachment 3 is to remain in the public excluded section as it contains confidential financial and other information relating to other parties.

Executive Summary

3. For the purposes of this report, ‘papakāinga housing’ refers to housing on multiple-owned Māori land. Establishing authentic papakāinga is viewed by tangata whenua as a source of wellbeing for whānau and the wider community.^{^[9]}

Context

4. Māori landowners face specific challenges to developing their land for any activity. These primarily arise from the land being multiple-owned (requirements to identify and contact all owners, to build consensus, and to establish collectively owned management entities), financing limitations (difficulty raising capital on land that cannot be sold, and for not-for-profit developments such as papakāinga housing), and lack of a significant asset base to leverage or offset risk related to development.

5. The development steps for delivery of papakāinga housing, used throughout this report, are shown in the diagram below, which is taken from Te Keteparaha mo ngā Papakāinga (the toolkit for Papakāinga development):

A diagram of a process

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

6. Contextual information was provided to Elected Members through a staff briefing on 4 December 2025, updated extracts are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

Background

7. Over time, the Council has sought to support papakāinga housing development within the city by focusing on reducing barriers that are within the council’s sphere of influence. These include navigating council processes, capacity and capability limitations, and financial barriers at most stages of the development process.

8. The Grant Fund for Development Contributions (DCs) on Papakāinga Housing was established in 2021, through the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan. This fund has a total value over six years to 2026/27 of $3m, and:

· Can only be used to provide 100% subsidies for citywide DC costs on papakāinga housing developments. It operates on a first-come-first-served basis and has clear eligibility criteria within its underpinning policy.

· Continues to be underutilised because developments are rarely able to raise sufficient funding to get to the build stage. By July 2026, it is likely that less than $500,000 of the total $3m six-year budget will have been distributed.

9. The Papakāinga Advisor role is a contracted part-time role established from existing operational budgets in mid-2023, to address gaps in current service delivery. The key focus of the role is to create a pipeline of papakāinga housing projects and stimulate progress to add housing supply on Māori land. The role requires a strong background in planning and construction on Māori land, and strong relationship building skills as it works closely with local Māori land entities. The Papakāinga Advisor is currently contracted for 15-20 hours per month and has provided the project information included in this report.

10. Ongoing council staff support for papakāinga housing is provided particularly from Te Pou Takawaenga and the City Planning & Growth, Environmental Planning, and Building Services teams.

Direction from the current Council

11. In late 2024 – early 2025, several ward councillors attended hui and/or site visits with Māori land entities working to progress papakāinga housing projects in their constituencies.

12. Council established the Papakāinga Fund through the Annual Plan 2025/26, approving a total budget of $400,000 in two tranches over two years (requiring a review prior to release of the second $200,000 for 2026/27). This fund:

· Aims to work with Tangata Whenua to reduce barriers to papakāinga housing development, such as funding detailed design and technical reports – i.e. barriers faced earlier in the development process than the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing.

· Staff delegation to approve expenditure from this fund was not considered at its establishment, as staff were directed to first develop criteria and a process for distribution of the fund. No distributions have yet been made from this fund.

13. On 18 November 2025, Council approved four priorities for development of the 2027-2037 Long-term Plan, including “delivering for our people: enabling housing”.

14. On 4 December 2025, staff briefed Elected Members on papakāinga housing development and a potential approach to allocating the Papakāinga Fund, including potential eligibility and assessment criteria. Direction from Elected Members has been incorporated into the proposed approach put forward in this report.

Proposed approach to distribution of the Papakāinga Fund

15. Assessment criteria for the fund have been refined, with review from Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana and Cr Rolleston. The criteria include specifications for eligibility, readiness to progress, readiness to build, how the funds may and may not be used, and accountability requirements.

16. In short, the Papakāinga Fund is proposed to be targeted to enabling larger-scale papakāinga housing developments to progress from concept plan (Step 3) to ‘shovel ready’ stage (Step 4), by providing funding for detailed design, technical reports and land-use resource consents for enabling earthworks and infrastructure. Enabling works and actual build costs, including building consent fees and DCs would not be eligible for the Papakāinga Fund.

17. The proposed process is:

(a) Open invitations to be issued for expressions of interest (EOI) in applying to the Papakāinga Fund. Council staff (primarily the Papakāinga Advisor) would then work with EOI applicants over a two-month period to clearly identify what type and level of support would be of most benefit in progressing their projects. Working together would also enable potential operational efficiencies to be identified and acted on to reduce costs for all involved. For the initial round, EOIs would be requested by 31 May 2026.

(b) A staff-based assessment panel (excluding the Papakāinga Advisor) would assess each project against the criteria, and make allocation recommendations to the GM: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth for approval. For the first round this would by 31 July 2026.

(c) Approved allocations would then be distributed to successful applicants within one month of approval. Staff recommend that the GM: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth is delegated financial authority to release payments from the Papakāinga Fund.

18. Principles proposed for the Papakāinga Fund are that: the council has discretion over the amount approved for each successful application (not necessarily 100% of costs); allocations would be for gst-inclusive amounts unless the Māori land entity is gst-registered, in which case allocations would be gst-exclusive; and any unallocated fund balance at year-end would be rolled over to the following year.

19. Alongside approval of this approach, staff also propose that Council approves the 2026/27 Papakāinga Fund budget of $200,000 so that it can be distributed within the initial funding round.

Papakāinga housing projects currently at concept plan stage: potentially eligible

20. The Papakāinga Advisor has identified five papakāinga housing development projects that aim to deliver a total of 61 new homes, which could be ready to build by early 2027. All five developments are at concept plan stage and are facing financial barriers preventing progress through the detailed design and land-use consent stages. Applications for funding for these professional services costs across all five developments are estimated to come to around $842,000 (incl gst).

21. In the Papakāinga Advisor’s view, and without pre-empting the EOI or assessment processes, these five developments are all potentially eligible for Papakāinga Fund support and would be ready to move as soon as funding was received.

22. A summary of financial and timeline information for these five developments is provided as (public excluded) Attachment 2 to this report, and a map showing the location of the developments is provided as (public excluded) Attachment 3.

Proposed amendments to the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing

23. Staff are seeking Council approval to transfer sufficient budget from the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing to the Papakāinga Fund to meet approved Papakāinga Fund distribution in any given year. If all five of the projects identified in (public excluded) Attachment 2 are approved, an initial transfer of around $442,000 is anticipated to be required in 2026/27.

24. Staff are also seeking Council approval to reduce the proportion of citywide DCs that can be funded from this grant fund from 100% to 50 – 75%, with the exact proportion to be determined subsequent to engagement on proposed policy amendments. The rationale for this proposed reduction is to benefit a greater number of developments, to recognise that the council is now also supporting projects earlier in the process, and that the financial barriers are lower for smaller scale papakāinga housing projects.

25. To implement these changes, should Council approve them, the underpinning Grants for DCs on Papakāinga Housing Policy would need to be amended. Council staff would engage with key stakeholders, including Māori land entities and Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, and bring the amended policy to Council or the City Future Committee for approval by 30 June 2026.

Longer term

26. Longer term, there is currently no budget for either the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing or the Papakāinga Fund post-2026/27. Both were funded from the Elder Housing Reserve.

27. Council staff recommend that options for continued support for papakāinga housing are considered through the upcoming Long-term Plan development process.

Next steps

28. If the Council approves the proposed approach outlined in this report, next steps would be:

(a) By 30 April 2026, council staff to invite expressions of interest (EOIs) for applications to the Papakāinga Fund. EOIs to be received by 31 May 2026, decisions confirmed by 31 July 2026, and approved funding – with associated terms and conditions – to be released by 31 August 2026; and

(b) By 30 June 2026, council staff to provide proposed amendments to the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing Policy to the City Future Committee or Council for approval.

Background

29. Papakāinga is used to refer to housing on ancestral Māori land, but may also refer to other related activities such as kohanga reo, kura kaupapa, horticulture or agriculture, sports and/or recreational areas, urupā etc. For the purposes of this report, ‘papakāinga housing’ refers to housing on multiple owned Māori land.

30. Over time, the Council has sought to support papakāinga housing development within the city by focusing on reducing barriers that are within the council’s sphere of influence. These include navigating council processes, capacity and capability limitations, and financial barriers at most stages of the development process.

31. Support the council currently provides for papakāinga housing development includes:

(a) The Grant Fund for Development Contributions (DCs) on Papakāinga Housing, established in 2021/22 with a total value over six years to 2026/27 of $3m. This fund can only be used to provide 100% subsidies for citywide DC costs and has clear eligibility criteria within its underpinning policy.

(b) The contracted, part-time Papakāinga Advisor role, approved in 2023/24, with a key focus of creating a pipeline of papakāinga housing projects and stimulating progress to add housing supply on Māori land. This role is currently contracted for 15-20 hours a month, around a third of the initial two years’ contracts.

(c) Ongoing council staff support for papakāinga housing is provided particularly from Te Pou Takawaenga and the City Planning & Growth, Environmental Planning, and Building Services teams.

(d) The Papakāinga Fund, established by this Council for 2025/26 – 2026/27 with a total value of $400,000 over two years. Further information on this fund is provided below.

32. Further information about development of papakāinga housing and the support currently provided by the council is provided in Attachment 1.

Direction from the current Council

33. In late 2024 – early 2025, several ward councillors attended hui and/or site visits with Māori land entities working to progress on papakāinga housing projects in their constituencies.

34. Council established the Papakāinga Fund through the Annual Plan 2025/26, with a total budget of $400,000 over two years. This fund’s purpose is to help reduce barriers to building papakāinga housing within the Tauranga City Council area.

35. On 27 May 2025, Council resolved (CO/25/14/18)^{^[10]} to:

· ‘Allocate $400,000 to establish a Council managed fund focused on assisting Tangata Whenua to progress papakāinga [housing] development, being $200,000 in 2025/26 funded from the unapplied allocation of elder housing proceeds included in the 2024/25 budget, with a review before allocating a further $200,000 in 2026/2027 also funded from the elder housing sale proceeds.

· Approve staff also undertaking further work to identify the criteria on when and how the fund will be allocated to provide assistance for tangata whenua to overcome current barriers to develop papakāinga [housing].’

36. Staff delegation to approve expenditure from the Papakāinga Fund was not considered at that time, and no funding has been distributed to date.

37. On 18 November 2025, Council considered the 2027-2037 Long-term Plan process (Agenda item 11.4), and approved “delivering for our people: enabling housing” as one of its four priorities that are to guide the Long-term Plan development (CO/25/27/9).

38. On 4 December 2025, council staff briefed Elected Members on a potential approach to distribution of the Papakāinga Fund. Direction from Elected Members following the briefing has been incorporated into the proposed approach presented for consideration in this report.

discussion

39. Elected Members have signalled their interest in the council providing targeted project-specific support to help remove barriers to getting papakāinga housing built, recognising that the council can influence only some of the barriers faced.

40. The Papakāinga Advisor, and other teams within council, support Māori land entities as far as possible to navigate their proposed papakāinga housing developments through to concept plan stage (Steps 1 – 3 of the papakāinga toolkit).

41. Council staff’s view is that the best use of the Papakāinga Fund will be to support multi-dwelling developments that have reached concept plan stage (Step 3) but are prevented from progressing to detailed design and consent stage (Steps 4 – 5) due to financial constraints.

42. This would ensure that the council’s focus is clearly on the areas that it can influence and which will provide the greatest benefit, as summarised in the table below:

Barriers encountered	Lead agency (solutions)	Challenge / Solution
Access to land	Māori Land Court	Backlog
Feasibility & concept design	Te Puni Kōkiri	Fund exhausted
Finance	Banks	Criteria unachievable
Technical reports incl land use resource consents	Māori land entity with potential TCC financial support.	Papakāinga Fund (proposal)
Detailed design	Māori land entity with potential TCC financial support.	Papakāinga Fund (proposal)
Civil construction works (e.g. enabling earthworks, transportation & utilities infrastructure)	Māori land entity (potentially MHUD)	Financing
Building consents	Māori land entity / Homeowner	Financing
Development contributions	TCC + Māori land entity / Homeowner	Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing (proposal)
Home build	Māori land entity / Homeowner	Financing

Proposed approach to administration of the Papakāinga Fund

Assessment criteria

43. Council staff have refined the assessment criteria for the Papakāinga Fund, incorporating direction received from Elected Members following the December 2025 briefing. The assessment criteria have been reviewed by Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana and Cr Rolleston, and are outlined below:

(a) Threshold eligibility (must meet all) – papakāinga housing, as defined in the Grants for DCs on Papakāinga Housing Policy; located within TCC boundaries; appropriate governance in place; formal governance commitment made to progress; multi-dwelling project stage; project at Step 4 (detailed planning and consent) of the papakāinga toolkit.

(b) Readiness to progress (assessment considerations) – early groundwork completed; clear barrier identified; funding will remove the identified barrier; ability for the project to progress once funding is provided.

(c) Readiness to build (priority considerations) – credible pathway to construction; staged delivery approach where applicable; level of scale and impact; infrastructure considerations understood.

(d) Use of funds and accountability –

(i) funding to be used for: planning and resource consent services (including land use resource consent costs for enabling works & infrastructure); engineering and technical investigations; surveying and geotechnical work.

(ii) funding not to be used for: civil construction works (earthworks, transportation & utilities installation to site); building consent fees; development contributions; house construction works; retrospective costs; general operating expenses.

(iii) Requirement to provide progress updates and outcomes reporting to the council.

Proposed approach – process, timelines and principles

44. Staff are now seeking Council approval of the following proposed approach to allocation and distribution of the Papakāinga Fund, with improvements to be incorporated into any funding rounds that may occur in the future.

45. The proposed process, with timeframes for the initial round, is outlined in the table below:

Initial Round Timeframe	Process
By 30 April 2026	Council staff call for expressions of interest (EOI) in applications to the Papakāinga Fund
By 31 May 2026	EOI period closes. Papakāinga Advisor, and other council staff as required, work with EOI parties to ascertain the projects’ requirements and, for those meeting the eligibility thresholds, assist wherever possible with progress towards achieving the Papakāinga Fund criteria. During this period, operational efficiencies are to be identified and taken up wherever possible, while also ensuring that the EOI parties continue to be empowered to lead and manage their projects (e.g. sharing information across projects, or TCC commissioning or facilitating consultancy services from one provider on behalf of multiple projects) noting that Māori land entities already share some information, such as house designs, to achieve cost efficiencies.
By 31 July 2026	Assessment Panel decisions on Papakāinga Fund allocation confirmed and applicants notified. · Assessment Panel to comprise relevant staff, e.g. representatives from the planning, building and Takawaenga Māori teams. o The Papakāinga Advisor role will not be part of the Assessment Panel, as this role will support applicants throughout the process. · Recommendations from the Assessment Panel approved by GM: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth. · All applicants to be notified of their result.
By 31 August 2026	Approved Papakāinga Fund allocations released to successful applicants, with associated terms and conditions. · Delegated financial authority to the GM: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth to release payments from the Papakāinga Fund · Successful applicants provide progress updates and outcome reporting to the council at specified frequency.
By 30 November 2026	Papakāinga Fund status update, including learnings identified to date, provided to Council.

46. Papakāinga Fund principles are proposed as follows:

(a) Distribution from the Papakāinga Fund to be at the council’s discretion – amounts approved for individual projects may not fund 100% of eligible costs, particularly where the Papakāinga Fund is oversubscribed.

(b) Allocations from the Papakāinga Fund will be for gst-inclusive amounts unless the applicant is registered for gst, in which case allocations will be gst-exclusive.

(c) In line with the Grant Fund for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Housing, any remaining balance in the Papakāinga Fund at year-end will roll over to the following year.

Papakāinga housing projects currently at concept plan stage: potentially eligible

47. The Papakāinga Advisor has identified five developments for a total of 61 homes that are at concept plan stage (Step 3) but cannot proceed further due to financial barriers. Total costs to enable all five developments to proceed through to ‘shovel ready’* stage (Step 4) is estimated to be $842,000 (incl gst).

* 'Shovel ready’ means ready to proceed with civil construction (development site earthworks and installation of transportation and utilities infrastructure), including having the land use resource consents in place for these works.

48. Building consent and development contribution costs, at an estimated total cost of $791,000 and $2.5m (incl gst) respectively, would then be required to reach ‘build ready’ stage for all five developments. The Papakāinga Fund is not proposed to be used for these costs, or for enabling infrastructure works.

(a) Note that three of the five developments are for licence to occupy (LTO) homes. In these cases, the Māori land entity will develop the site only, enabling individual whanau to build their own homes which includes payment for enabling infrastructure works, building consent fees and development contributions. The ‘build ready’ timeframes also indicate the earliest dates, as each LTO homeowner will build as their personal circumstances allow.

(b) A summary of relevant cost and timing estimates for these five papakāinga housing developments is provided as (public excluded) Attachment 2. These costs exclude costs already incurred to reach detailed the current detailed design stage, civil construction costs, and costs to build the homes once the development site is ‘build-ready’.

49. Clearly $842,000 is more funding than the $200,000 currently available in the Papakāinga Fund.

50. Options for Council’s consideration are to release the remainder of the Papakainga Fund budget, and to reallocate the remaining shortfall from the under-allocated Grant Fund for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Housing.

Proposed release of the remaining $200,000 budget for the Papakāinga Fund

51. Council staff propose that the Council approves the second, 2026/27, tranche of $200,000 budget for the Papakāinga Fund.

52. The information provided in this report (project-specific information, clear assessment criteria, proposed process and principles for allocation and distribution) is considered to provide Council with sufficient assurance that there is both the need for the funding and that robust guardrails will be in place to administer the Papakāinga Fund appropriately.

Proposed amendments to the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing

Proposed transfer to Papakāinga Fund

53. As noted in the supporting information to this report (Attachment 1), uptake of the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing has been low due to difficulties larger scale papakāinga housing developments face in getting to the build stage. There is currently just over $2m in this Fund, and the final year’s allocation in 2026/27 will bring that to just over $2.5m.

54. However, this Grant Fund has proven very helpful for individual papakāinga housing developments and, in future, larger-scale developments (including some or all of the five discussed in this report) might apply to this fund if they can get to that stage of the process.

55. For this reason, staff suggest that any reallocation of budget from this fund to the Papakāinga Fund should be driven by identified need and should be formally approved independently from the Papakāinga Fund application approvals.

56. In the current case, the recommended transfer would initially be to address the estimated $442,000 shortfall in the Papakāinga Fund for 2025/26 – 2026/27 (assuming the 2026/27 Papakāinga Fund budget of $200,000 has been released).

Proposed reduction in proportion of DCs funded

57. A second consideration is that the Grants for DCs on Papakāinga Housing Policy currently specifies that 100% of DCs are funded for eligible applicants, on a first come first served basis. These principles were agreed when developing the approach with key stakeholders in 2021. With the additional Papakāinga Fund now in place, larger-scale developments are likely to proceed through to the building consent and development contribution stage, with a flow-on risk of over-subscription to the Grants for DCs on Papakāinga Housing Fund under the current Policy.

58. Council staff propose that the proportion of DCs funded is reduced from 100% to somewhere between 50% - 75% (exact proportion to be confirmed) for all applicants, with approvals still being on a first come first served basis. Rationale for this proposed reduction is to benefit a greater number of developments; to recognise that the council is now supporting Māori land entities earlier in their multi-dwelling papakāinga housing development process; and that the financial barriers are lower for individual or smaller papakāinga housing projects.

Policy update required

59. Proceeding with the proposed approach (enabling transfer of budget and reducing the proportion of DCs funded 100% to a lower amount) would require the underpinning Grants for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Housing Policy to be amended. Engagement with potentially affected parties would be undertaken by council staff before determining final draft amendments. Draft amendments would then be reported to Council or the City Future Committee before the end of June 2026 for approval. This timing is to enable the updated Policy to be approved before any transfer between funds was required.

LTP consideration of continued support for papakāinga housing

60. Currently, there is no budget for either the Grant Fund for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Housing or the Papakāinga Fund post-2026/27. Both were funded from the Elder Housing Reserve. Council staff recommend that options for continued support are considered through the upcoming Long-term Plan development process.

61. Should the Papakāinga Fund be extended through the Long-term Plan process, a guiding framework or policy will be developed and implemented by 1 July 2027 to ensure a structured and transparent approach to the fair distribution of this fund over time.

Statutory Context

62. Council support to help enable papakāinga housing development contributes to the core purpose of local government under the Local Government Act 2002 (Part 2, Section 10(1)(b)), being to ‘promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future’.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

63. 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	☐
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	☐

64. Supporting development of papakāinga housing aligns with three of the council’s community outcomes and primary strategies, including Tauranga Mataraunui (an inclusive city), Tauranga Taurikura (a city that values, protects and enhances our environment), Tauranga – Tātai Whenua (a well-planned city) and Tauranga Ara Rau (a city we can move around easily) – through the SmartGrowth Strategy.

Options Analysis

65. There two, potentially three, related but separate issues presented for Council’s consideration as outlined below:

Issue 1: Approach to distribution of the Papakāinga Fund

66. Option 1A (Recommended): Approve the proposed approach outlined in this report, including the process, timelines, principles, release of 2026/27 Papakāinga Fund budget, and financial delegation to the GM: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth to release payments to successful applicants.

Advantages	Disadvantages
Enables prompt action to start the fund distribution process.	Insufficient budget in the approved Papakāinga Fund of $400,000 to fully remove current financial barriers for all five developments identified as ‘likely to be eligible’.
With the additional funding proposed under Issue 2, would remove financial barriers currently faced by the five identified ‘likely to be eligible’ developments.
Aims of the Papakāinga Fund more likely to be realised, assisting progress for 61 new homes on multiple-owned Māori land within Tauranga City.
Would help build trust between mana whenua and the council.

67. Option 1B: Approve in part the proposed approach outlined in this report, directing staff to bring back advice on changes sought at the next available opportunity.

Advantages	Disadvantages
Opportunity to improve the proposed approach	Distributing the Papakāinga Fund would be later than proposed in this report, delaying progress on developments that are otherwise ready to proceed.

68. Option 1C: Do not approve the proposed approach outlined in this report, and provide staff with direction on how the Council wishes to proceed.

Advantages	Disadvantages
Opportunity to improve on the proposed approach	Potentially may slow down the council’s ability to act.

Issue 2: Amendments to the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing

69. Option 2A (Recommended): Approve the proposed approach as outlined in this report to transfer budget from the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing to the Papakāinga Fund on an as-needed basis, ensuring an acceptable balance remains in the former to meet its purpose, and to reduce the amount of DCs funded from 100% to 50-75% (level to be determined through engagement process). To also undertake an annual outcome and process review to ensure the aims of both funds are being achieved and improve the process over time.

Advantages	Disadvantages
Enables larger scale papakāinga housing developments to proceed to ‘shovel ready’ stage, while balancing the need to retain a sufficient balance in the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing.	Reducing the proportion of DCs funded below 100% may create risk for developments that have budgeted at this level of funding and may face difficulties in finding alternative means of financing the shortfall.
Mitigates the risk of over-subscription to the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing (by reducing the proportion of DCs funded), as larger-scale developments will be enabled by the Papakāinga Fund to get to the building consent and DCs stage.	Moving budget from the DC Grants Fund to the Papakāinga Fund may expose the council to greater risk of losing this funding if a project fails – as there tends to be greater risk of project failure earlier in the project lifecycle.
Annual outcome and process review will mitigate risk of unintended consequences (‘unknown unknowns’) over time.

70. Option 2B: Approve the proposed approach as outlined in this report on a one-off basis to provide additional funding if required to meet approved applications from the first EOI round and reduce the amount of DCs funded from 100% to 50-75% (level to be determined through engagement process). Review the benefits of this approach prior to a Council decision on a continuation or otherwise for the Long-term Plan by 30 June 2027.

Advantages	Disadvantages
Review would mitigate risk of unintended consequences that may become apparent through the initial round.	Uncertainty for Māori land entities with papakāinga housing developments earlier in the ‘pipeline’, more difficult to plan ahead with confidence.
	May not have sufficient data to make a ‘go’ / ‘no go’ decision for all years after the initial round of applications.

71. Option 2C (Status Quo): Do not approve the proposed approach to transfer budget from the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing to the Papakāinga Fund or to reduce the amount of DCs funded from 100% to 50-75% (level to be determined through engagement process).

Advantages	Disadvantages
	Most eligible papakāinga housing developments will be unable to progress to build-ready stage due to financial constraints.
	Aims of the Papakāinga Fund not met.
	Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing will continue to be under-utilised, as developments will be unable to get to build-ready stage.

Issue 3: Financial delegation to approve budget transfer from the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing to the Papakāinga Fund

72. This issue will require Council’s direction only if Option 2A or 2B above are approved.

73. If this is the case, council staff seek direction on where the Council wishes approval to transfer budget from one fund to the other should sit. Options include:

74. Option 3A (Recommended): Council delegates financial authority to the Chief Executive OR Chief Operating and Financial Officer to transfer budget from the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing to the Papakāinga Fund (on advice from the Assessment Panel with the approval of the GM: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth).

Advantages	Disadvantages
Creates a separation of staff duties by separating Papakāinga Fund allocation and authority to release funds (GM: Strategy, Partnerships and Growth), from authority to transfer budget into the Papakāinga Fund from the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing (CEO or COFO)	Elected Members do not necessarily have visibility of transfers from one fund to the other before a transfer is approved/made.
Financial delegation to staff remains at senior management level.
Operational and governance efficiency – recognising that this is simply a transfer of budget from one fund to another, both of which have the same aims, and both of which are funded from reserves, so a transfer does not impact on rates.

75. Option 3B: Council must approve any transfer of budget from the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing to the Papakāinga Fund (transfer amounts being recommended by the Assessment Panel and approved by the GM: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth).

Advantages	Disadvantages
Provides visibility of proposed transfers from one fund to the other before they occur, and to approve proposed transfers or not should this be deemed necessary.	Less efficient from both an operational and governance perspective, when this is a simple budget transfer from one reserve fund to another, both with the same aims and no impact on rates.

Financial Considerations

76. There are no major financial considerations from the recommendations in this report.

77. Both the Papakāinga Fund of $400,000 by 2026/27 and the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing of $3m by 2026/27 were established through the annual or long-term plan processes.

78. Both funds have the same overall aim of supporting papakāinga housing development in Tauranga city, and both are funded by the Elder Housing Reserve rather than through rates.

79. Council staff have worked closely with Māori land entities to identify and support papakāinga housing development projects. This has enabled clear identification of the project pathways and estimated costs, barriers to progress, and areas where the council might best target its financial support.

80. The recommendations in this report would enable both funds to be better utilised for their intended purpose of removing barriers to development of papakāinga housing in the city.

Legal Implications / Risks

81. There are no legal implications identified for the recommendations in this report, with the Grants for DCs on Papakāinga Housing Policy changes ensuring alignment between the policy and the distribution of this fund.

82. There is a risk that the budgets established for these funds may be under-utilised if the recommendations in this report are not approved and no alternative distribution approach is agreed. However, the Council’s discussion of the issues and options presented should mitigate this risk.

83. There is a risk that the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing may be over-subscribed if larger-scale eligible developments can proceed to the build-ready stage as a result of support from the Papakāinga Fund. The proposal in this report to reduce the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing amounts payable to eligible applicants from 100% to somewhere between 50 – 75% (to be finalised) should mitigate this risk. This change would be included in engagement on proposed changes to the Grants for DCs on Papakāinga Policy, with approval required from Council or the City Delivery Committee by 30 June 2026, as outlined earlier in this report.

84. There is also a reputational and trust risk for the council in targeting the Papakāinga Fund to multi-dwelling projects at a specific stage of the development process (Step 4), as other Māori land entities trying to progress papakāinga developments may feel overlooked. Council staff and Elected Members can mitigate this risk through clear, fact-based communication, and a well-managed process.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

85. The recommendations made in this report align most closely with the following principles in the council’s Te Ao Māori Approach:

(a) Rangatiratanga – mana motuhake (self determination). The recommendations support Māori land entities to progress multi-dwelling papakāinga housing developments, enabling whanau to return to and live on their whenua. The Papakāinga Fund was established in 2025 in response to annual plan submissions seeking funding to assist Tangata Whenua to progress papakāinga on multiple owned Māori land. TCC’s Papakāinga Advisor role has been in place for several years, providing active engagement with Māori land entities to understand and support their aspirations to develop papakāinga housing on their whenua. This work has enabled identification and support of a pipeline of papakāinga housing projects across city.

(b) Kaitiakitanga – stewardship of the natural environment. The recommendations support papakāinga development on multiple owned Māori land, which enables whanau to live on and actively care for their whenua.

(c) Wairuatanga – mana atua & whakapono (a well-grounded belief system that supports instinct and intuition in line with whāia te tika, the pursuit of the right way forward). The recommendations support greater connection to whenua by enabling papakāinga housing developments.

(d) Tūmanako – the objectives and aspirations of the community, whai rawa/ōhanga (financial sustainability, economic health and business strategy). The recommendations assist tangata whenua by reducing financial barriers, which improve their ability to progress multi-dwelling papakāinga housing developments. The recommendations contribute to ‘levelling the playing field’ slightly in terms of home ownership for tangata whenua, helping to improve wellbeing outcomes.

CLIMATE IMPACT

86. The recommendations of this report do not specifically contribute to the city’s ability to adapt to climate change, reduce emissions, or enhance nature and biodiversity. However, the recommendations do promote economic and social sustainability for tangata whenua who would be enabled to return to and live in their own homes on their whenua.

Consultation / Engagement

87. Council staff have engaged with a range of Māori land entities over the past year to assist proposed papakāinga developments with advice and support. The Papakāinga Advisor has identified developments that would likely be able to progress to build-ready stage if their current financial barriers to detailed design and land-use consent were removed.

88. The assessment criteria have been reviewed by Cr Rolleston, and by Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana earlier this year.

Significance

89. 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.

90. 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.

91. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision (to approve the proposed approach to distribution of the Papakāinga Fund) is of low significance. This is low assessment is influenced by the fact that this report seeks a redistribution of funds previously approved by Council resolution to be applied to papakainga housing, and to establish the processes for that distribution. The report does not seek a net increase in funding previously approved.

ENGAGEMENT

92. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision (to approve the proposed approach to distribution of the Papakāinga Fund) is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

93. If the Council approves the proposed approach outlined in this report, next steps for the initial Papakāinga Fund allocation would be:

(a) Council staff to call for expressions of interest (EOI) in applications to the Papakāinga Fund by 30 April 2026.

(b) EOIs to be received by 31 May 2026.

(d) Approved funding, with associated terms and conditions, to be released by 31 August 2026.

94. Associated next steps for the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing would be:

(a) Council staff to begin engagement with potentially affected parties (including Māori land entities and Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana) regarding proposed amendments to the Grants for DCs on Papakāinga Housing Policy by 30 April 2026.

(b) Council staff to provide proposed amendments to the Grant Fund for DCs on Papakāinga Housing Policy to Council or the City Future Committee for approval by 30 June 2026.

Attachments

1. Papakāinga background - extracts 4 December 2025 - A20116853 ⇩

2. Papakāinga projects overview - 31 March 2026 - A20113165 - Public Excluded

3. Papakāinga projects map - 31 March 2026 - A20108224 - Public Excluded

[1] Some minor refinements have been introduced to the Joint Committee’s role with respect to Service Level Agreements (SLA) between the WO and relevant Council. The negotiation of the Agreements will be left to the WO and relevant Chief Execute (CE), without the Joint Committee’s input. Instead, the Joint Committee will provide high level oversight and receive reports from the WO and Council CE's as to whether the SLA's are within the approved budgets, and how transition off SLA's is proposed to be managed over time.

[2] This was agreed to in principle by Council on 24 March.

[3] This was agreed to in principle by Council on 24 March.

[4] This was agreed to in principle by Council on 24 March and currently subject to a public consultation process.

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

[6] The term “water service provider” is defined to apply whether it is Tauranga City Council or a new water organisation undertaking the responsibilities of a water service provider.

[7] “Commonly called forever chemicals, PFAS are a large, complex group of synthetic chemicals that are used widely in consumer products and industrial processes around the world for their water, grease, heat and stain-resistant properties.” PFAS are forever – a complicated chemical family | EPA

[9] Te Keteparaha mo ngā Papakāinga (the toolkit for Papakāinga development)

[10] Council Minutes 26-27 May 2025 (page 14), Agenda item 11.6 m-n.


AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 21 April 2026
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 21 April 2026
Time:	9:30 am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Chambers, Mareanui L1, 90 Devonport Road Tauranga

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

Status of actions	No. actions
Closed (completed since the last report)	11
Pending (waiting on something)	4
In progress	4
To be actioned	0
Total actions included in this report	19