Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7 Reports

7.1 Revocation of Community Infrastructure Consideration of Operational Cost Savings 2024/2025 decision of 27 March 2025 Council meeting

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-05-2

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To revoke part of the previous decision made at the 27 March 2025 Tasman District Council meeting - Community Infrastructure Consideration of Operational Cost Savings 2024/2025 [CN25-03-16].

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 A late report was presented to the 27 March 2025 Council meeting proposing Community Infrastructure operational cost savings to reduce forecasted over-expenditure in the maintenance budget. The late item agenda for that report can be found here.

2.2 The minutes of the 27 March Council meeting record the decision as:

7.7 Consideration of Operational Cost Savings 2024/2025

CN25-03-16

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Report on Community Infrastructure Consideration of Operational Cost Savings 2024/2025, RCN25-03-12; and

2. notes that for the Waters and Wastewater activity the frequency of routine monitoring will only be reduced where compliance with water regulations is not compromised; and

3. notes that reducing routine maintenance in the Waters and Wastes activity may realise circa $10,000 savings in 2024/25; and

4. notes that there is little opportunity to reduce levels of service in the Waste Management and Minimisation activity without incurring additional costs next year and that increasing gate charges is not recommended; and

5. approves the following levels of service reductions in Reserves and Facilities activity for the remainder of the 2024/2025 year:

5.1 the removal of Rubbish Bins from Reserves, potentially saving $229,000 per annum; and

5.2 reducing the cleaning frequency of 14 public toilets saving $75,000 per annum; and

5.3 the temporary closure of three public toilets and the discretion to temporarily close more on a seasonal basis if identified as low use, saving $12,000 per annum; and

5.4 reducing annual bedding displays (planting) in formal gardens saving $84,000 per annum; and

5.5 reducing conservation shrub maintenance saving $159,000 per annum; and

6. approves reducing the levels of service within the Transportation activity for the remainder of the 2024/2025 year as follows:

6.1 reduce the frequency of street sweeping across all urban areas potentially saving $30,000; and

6.2 pause rural roadside mowing except for safety/critical sightlines potentially saving $90,000; and

6.3 reduce the urban landscape mowing potentially saving $2,500.

2.3 The rationale for the resolutions is contained in that report (CN25-03-16).

2.4 Following discussions with staff and elected officials the recommendation is that the Council rescinds part of the previous decision of the Council, being resolutions 5.1 to 5.5.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Revocation of Community Infrastructure Consideration of Operational Cost Savings 2024/2025 decision of 27 March 2025 Council meeting report,
RCN25-05-2; and

2. revokes the following part of the previous decision (CN25-03-16), made at the 27 March 2025 Council meeting regarding Community Infrastructure Consideration of Operational Cost Savings 2024/2025:

That the Tasman District Council

…

5. approves the following levels of service reductions in Reserves and Facilities activity for the remainder of the 2024/2025 year:

5.1 the removal of Rubbish Bins from Reserves, potentially saving $229,000 per annum; and

5.2 reducing the cleaning frequency of 14 public toilets saving $75,000 per annum; and

5.3 the temporary closure of three public toilets and the discretion to temporarily close more on a seasonal basis if identified as low use, saving $12,000 per annum; and

5.4 reducing annual bedding displays (planting) in formal gardens saving $84,000 per annum; and

5.5 reducing conservation shrub maintenance saving $159,000 per annum; and

…

3. notes that the Reserves and Facilities activity will absorb these costs and continue to make operational decisions to reduce ongoing costs.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Following discussions with elected officials and staff, it has been decided to revoke resolution 5.1 to 5.5 from the late report 7.7 presented at the Council meeting on 27 March 2025, titled “Consideration of Operational Cost Savings 2024/2025”.

4.2 The rationale is considered that the wording of this part of the resolution was not clear enough to ensure that the elected members had a clear understanding of the effect of this decision. This is partly because the cost savings were on a ‘per annum’ basis as opposed to being an indication of actual costs.

4.3 This confusion has been echoed by parts of the community.

4.4 Further work has also been undertaken which indicates that the expected savings for the current financial year are not as significant as indicated in the previous report.

5. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

5.1 The Facilities and Reserves team will continue to evaluate potential cost savings across their activities as part of standard operational management.

5.2 Achieving any cost reductions will require enhanced oversight of services, including adjustments to service levels such as the frequency of toilet cleaning based on seasonal demand.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The Council has the option to either rescind part of the previous decision or continue with the resolutions as passed.

6.2 Rescinding part of the previous decision is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Council has the legal ability to rescind part of the previous decision made.

7.2 It is noted that the decision to rescind is not an inconsistent decision for the purposes of section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002. This is because it is revoking that decision as opposed to acting in an inconsistent manner with it.

8. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

8.1 The previous decision contained in the minutes (CN25-03-16) generated significant interest in the community. The rescinding part of that decision is likely to garner similar interest and, based on the feedback received, be supported by the community.

9. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

9.1 Following this decision a statement will be provided on the Council’s social media channels.

10. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

10.1 The rescinding of this decision will create additional financial pressure that the activity will need to manage carefully.

11. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

11.1 It is recommended that the Council rescind part of its previous decision on the basis that the previous resolution was not sufficiently clear and the proposed cost savings may not be able to be recognised.

12. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.2 Quarterly Financial Report - to 31 March 2025

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Paul Egan, Management Accounting Manager
Report Authorisers:	Mike Drummond, Chief Financial Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-05-3

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 This financial report provides an update on key financial information for the nine months ending 31 March 2025.

1.2 The scope of this financial report excludes revenue and expenditure from joint operations, as well as the share of associates’ surplus or deficit. This approach ensures a focused analysis on the financial results of the core operations of the Council. Amounts related to joint operations and associates will be consolidated and included in the 2024/25 Annual Report.

1.3 As of 31 March 2025, the accounting deficit is $4.7 million higher than budgeted, primarily due to increased maintenance expenditure, depreciation and amortisation, which outweigh favourable variances in employee and other expenses.

1.4 We are still forecasting an unfavourable variance in borrowing costs of $2.3 million by year-end. Reported borrowing costs have been impacted by credit interest error that will come out on consolidation at year end.

1.5 Overall, we anticipate a circa $6.5 million increase to the 2024/2025 budgeted year-end deficit position. This will need to be debt-funded and will impact rates and borrowing costs for the 2025/2026 Annual Plan budget. Typically, deficits are funded at the activity level over the following three to five years. This funding matter is being addressed in the 2024/25 Forecast Overspend report being presented at this meeting.

1.6 Overall revenue is tracking close to budget, with higher operating subsidies, water rates, but lower development contributions, reserve financial contributions, and forestry revenue.

1.7 The balanced budget benchmark that includes some capital related income but focuses on funding of operating expenditure is at 90% year to date, versus an Annual Plan budget benchmark of 96%.

1.8 Capital expenditure is $40.7 million at 53% of full year budget of $76 million. It appears unlikely the full year budget can be achieved.

1.9 Net debt is at $266.8 million versus the Long Term Plan (LTP) estimate for 2024/25 of $279.7 million.

1.10 While receivables, rates arrears and dishonoured direct debit rates payments are consistent with recent years, the level of successful rates rebate applications year to date is higher than the previous five years. Staff continue to promote the Rates Rebate Scheme.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Quarterly Financial Report - to 31 March 2025 report, RCN25-05-3.

3. Financial Benchmarks

3.1 Balanced Budget benchmark

3.1.1 The balanced budget benchmark is part of a suite of benchmarks as defined in the Local Government (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014. These benchmarks are included in the Council’s Annual Reports, Annual Plans and Long Term Plans.

3.2 The official balanced budget benchmark includes capital subsidies and grants as operational income, significantly reducing the budgeted and reported operational deficit (by $6.3 million). This overstates the percentage of operating expenditure covered by revenue, removing the capital subsidies from the balanced budget calculations would reduce the expenditure coverage percentage to a much lower 86%.

3.3 The balanced budget benchmark amounts are detailed below to provide an indication of reporting.

3.4 Loan funded operating expenses impact the balance budget benchmark. Year to date, they were $3.5 million, of which $3 million related to the Digital Innovation Programme, with most of the rest being for the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) and Saxton Field. The budget for loan funded operating expense for the 2024/25 year is $9.25 million, however, $3.17 million, related to the museum storage facility, has been deferred.

3.5 The level of depreciation that is funded impacts the balanced budget benchmark. Funded depreciation is an expense related to the wearing out of Council assets. It is considered when calculating rates and the funds collected are used to fund the renewal of assets. Approximately 75% of depreciation expense is included in these calculations, meaning less is recovered, increasing the likelihood some operating expenses will need to be funded from debt.

4. Financial Performance

Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense

Areas of key variance are elaborated below.

Maintenance Analysis

4.1 As indicated in the previous reports, maintenance expenditure is continuing to track over budget. It is expected to end the year approximately $3 million over budget, given the latest forecasts. This over expenditure estimate excludes Joint Operations.

4.2 Water Supply, Transportation and Reserves and Facilities are the main areas of forecast overspend.

Year to date Revenue

4.3 Development and Financial Contributions are tracking at about half the level for the same period in the previous two years. With the increase in Development Contribution charges from 1 July 2024, some developers prepaid their development contributions in the 2023/24 year under the Council’s once paid always paid policy.

4.4 Fees and Charges continue to track slightly ahead of budget, with Building Assurance and Resource Consents performing better than budget, however, Waste Management & Minimisation are down due to reduced volumes.

4.5 Other Revenue is $1.4 million net ahead due to a mix of factors, including dividend income due to the change in timing in payment of the Infrastructure Holdings Limited (IHL) dividend. Lease related income is higher, as are Joint Operations related distributions, with offsets from lower forestry income due to lower log prices and revised harvesting programmes.

Finance Expense (Net)

4.6 After making an adjustment of circa $1 million for interest related to Joint Operations, the Net correct Finance expense variance is approximately $1,166,000 unfavourable to budget year to date. The timing of capital expenditure, and higher interest income will increase the net expense. This is expected to be a $2.3 million unfavourable position at year end.

Depreciation and Amortisation

4.7 With the higher-than-expected increase in asset valuations at the end of 2023/24, the budgeted depreciation and amortisation in the Annual Plan/Long Term Plan is considerably less than current actuals. Year to date depreciation and amortisation is $2.7 million over budget and is expected to end the year over $4 million over budget. The increase in property, plant and equipment as a result of the revaluations has resulted in significant increases in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan depreciation budgets.

4.8 The depreciation expense recognises the consumption and wearing out of tangible assets over their life, the reported value of the asset reduces by this amount. The depreciation is included with the rest of the expenses in the financial statements and rates calculations. In simple terms, the costs of the Council including an amount of depreciation - are what rates and other income of Council need to cover to achieve a balanced budget.

4.9 This funding from rates and other income sources covers the depreciation expense bringing cash into the Council. In general, this cash is used to fund the repayment of borrowing incurred in purchasing the assets.

4.10 Asset revaluations are required under financial reporting standards, and they more accurately reflect the value, and likely replacement costs of longer life assets, than their historic cost. Upwards revaluations increase the depreciation expense, increasing the rates (and other income) required, where they do exceed the cost of debt servicing, they create a reserve that moderates the rates impact when renewal does need to occur.

5. Capital Expenditure by Activity

5.1 The LTP financial budgets assume that the full capital works programme will not be delivered in its entirety each year. This historical under-delivery is factored into the forecast net debt levels and finance costs.

5.2 Changes to the capital programme - notably the changes approved in the 24 October 2025 Tasman District Council meeting, and to the Lower Queen Street Bridge Project related changes in the 13 February 2025 Tasman District Council meeting, lead to re-phasing and re-prioritisation. These changes in capital expenditure are reflected in the transfers shown in the table below, with some items being brought forward and others being rephased to future years.

5.3 Year-to-date expenditure is 53% of the budget three quarters of the way through the year. It is, however, sitting at 60% of latest forecast spend. While a ramp up of the expenditure is expected in the last quarter, a material carry forward into the 2025/26 financial year is also expected. To avoid a carry forward on the current budget, capital expenditure would have to average approximately $11.8 million per month for April to June 2025. This appears unlikely given the monthly average expenditure to March is $4.5 million, and the consistent history of underspent capital budgets in previous years.

5.4 The consistent capital budget underspends and carry forwards appear to have several causal factors that include:

5.4.1 An annual cycle of releasing work.

5.4.2 The multi-year nature of many projects.

5.4.3 The complexity of being able to proceed on a project, where there are issues, such as acquiring land, obtaining resource consents, due process, design changes, external funders input, and dependencies on other projects finishing first.

5.4.4 Changes to priorities due to growth, and growth predictions, needed land availability, and overall budget constraints.

5.5 The organisation needs to further consider developing a realistically deliverable capital works programme that incorporates increased efficiencies, this would potentially require additional focused resources. The Council has indicated through the draft Annual Plan process that it is not in favour of additional resources currently. Given the current financial environment including an increasing operational deficit, the Council is incentivised to avoid increasing debt through capital expenditure and to defer such expenditure into future years. This approach needs to be communicated to and understood by the community.

5.6 Budget, spend and forecast by activity is summarised in the table on the next page.

6. Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet)

6.1 The Statement of Financial Position

7. Net Debt and External Debt

7.1 The Treasury report, that will be presented at the next Council meeting, will have more detail and analysis in this area.

7.2 On 31 March 2025, the Council's total debt of $390.3 million was unchanged from 31 December 2024, and its Net Debt stood at $266.8 million against a policy limit of $295.1 million (160% of forecast annual revenue).

7.3 The Pass-through Loans are Shareholder advances to Waimea Water Limited for funding the Waimea Community Dam. These loans are excluded in calculating the Council’s Net Debt position. They are included in assessing the Council’s borrowing from the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) and the LGFA covenants.

7.4 The linked deposits are the Council pre-funding its April 2025 LGFA loan repayments. This pre-funding is part of our Treasury borrowing strategy.

Breakdown of net debt

8. Debtors | Receivables

8.1 Rates receivables are like previous years after allowing for rates income increases. Other receivables are down on previous years, due largely to reduced forestry income.

8.2 The receivables summary is set out below:

Rates Receivables

8.3 The number of rates rebate applications are significantly up this year, with the approval of 240 more rebates than at the same point last year (2023/24), totalling an extra $200,000 of savings for low-income ratepayers. If this trend continues, we anticipate over 2,000 successful applications by the end of June.

8.4 While the Council covers the administration costs of the Rates Rebate scheme the rebates themselves are refunded to the Council by Central Government.

8.5 The rates team is proactive in this area and will be sending a letter to previous applicants who have not yet applied this year, encouraging them to submit their applications before the end of the rating year.

Chart 1, Chart element

Other Receivables

8.6 This includes all other items, accounting accruals, fees and charges, infringements, forestry debtors, amounts due from NZTA, development contributions, reserve financial contributions, and interest receivable etc.

8.7 The $1,400,000 decrease in other receivables is mostly due to the movement in accounting accruals compared to March 2024. These accruals are for income such as NZTA, water, refuse and interest on investments.

8.8 The following graphs compare debt that is older than three months with the total debt for each part of the Council. These have been separated between balances over $50,000 and balances under $50,000 for scaling purposes to provide a meaningful graph of the smaller balances.

8.9 The ten largest debts exceeding three months in age amount to $332,000. These are primarily concentrated in Building Control ($110,000 from four debtors) and Resource Consents ($106,000 from two debtors). Additionally, there are two sundry debts totalling $66,000 and one instance of unpaid monitoring charges ($35,000). Active recovery action is underway for all these debts. The remaining balance of $15,000 pertains to outstanding community lessee rates on charging.

9. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.3 2024/25 Forecast Overspend

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Matthew McGlinchey, Financial Performance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Mike Drummond, Chief Financial Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-05-4

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To gain approval for $6.4 million in unbudgeted rates funded operational expenditure in the 2024/2025 Annual Plan year. Noting that the Council passed a resolution on 30 April 2025 to partly fund this offset forecast overspend by the sale of $3.0 million of unencumbered emissions trading scheme (ETS) credits.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Council expects to be an overall $6.4 million overspent on operational costs in the 2024/2025 financial year. Table 1 illustrates where the material overspends will occur. Noting that some activities have an overall surplus forecast.

2.2 An increase in interest rates and maintenance costs in the Community Infrastructure area are the main drivers of the forecast expenditure overspend.

2.3 The Council’s level of borrowing ($309 million gross debt at 31 March 2025) means that relatively small movements in interest rates can have a significant impact on finance costs. Those cost pressures are concentrated in infrastructure activities which have the bulk of the Council debt.

2.4 Funds collected via targeted rates and/or fees and charges for one activity cannot be used in another activity. The only exception is the General Rate and the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) which can be used for any activity.

2.5 Staff have made every effort to try to mitigate the planned overspend. A business review process has been undertaken to review levels of service and find operational cost savings. This work has been significant and has occurred over the last six months. The work has also fed into the draft Annual Plan 2025/2026 process.

2.6 Selling further unencumbered ETS to the value of $3.0 million prior to 30 June 2025, will mean the year end deficit could be reduced to $3.4 million. This remaining $3.4 million will be loan funded and is proposed to be recovered over five years at approximately $700,000 per annum commencing from the 2026/2027 Annual Plan year.

Table 1

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the 2024/25 Forecast Overspend report RCN25-05-4; and

2. notes the forecast underspends in the following activities:

2.1 Flood Protection and River Control work $152,000

2.2 Public Health & Safety $317,000; and

3. approves the forecast unbudgeted operational expenditure in the following activities:

3.3 Coastal Structures $52,000

3.4 Reserves and Facilities $321,000

3.5 Governance $100,000

3.6 Waste Management and Minimisation $1.85 million

3.7 Stormwater $525,000

3.8 Transportation, Roads and Footpaths $770,000

3.9 Wastewater $995,000

3.10 Water Supply $2.3 million; and

4. confirms the sale of approximately $3 million of unencumbered emissions trading scheme credits prior to 30 June 2025, subject to professional advice on staging the sales to achieve the best overall price.

5. delegates to the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer the authority to enter into the sale of the unencumbered emissions trading scheme credits and sign any associated document required to give effect that sale; and

6. approves the allocation of the proceeds of the proposed $3.0 million emissions trading scheme sales against debt financing costs as follows:

6.11 Reserves and Facilities $500,000

6.12 Transportation, Roads and Footpaths $500,000

6.13 Wastewater $1.0 million

6.14 Water Supply $1.0 million; and

7. approves use of Waste Disposal Levy funding for transport of recyclable materials, public place recycling, development of waste policy and diversion of hazardous waste from landfill; and

8. approves that the final 2024/2025 Operational deficit, forecast to be $3.4 million is financed through additional borrowing and repaid over the following five years commencing in 2025/2026.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 In September of this financial year, staff became aware that it was most likely that the Council would be overspent in certain activity areas because of higher than budgeted maintenance and interest costs.

4.2 If overspends are expected to occur and there is no offsetting underspend, then staff are required to get this unbudgeted expenditure approved by the Council, in line with the Council’s delegations. Noting that this approval is required prior to the overspend occurring.

4.3 Staff expect the overspend of existing annual budgets to start occurring in May 2025.

4.4 Staff have made every effort to try to mitigate the planned overspend. A business review process has been undertaken to review levels of service and find operational cost savings. This work has been significant and has occurred over the last six months. This work has also fed into the draft Annual Plan 2025/2026 process.

4.5 Despite these measures, the Council still expects to be in an increased forecast deficit position compared to the Long Term Plan (LTP) budget operational deficit as at 30 June 2025.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 There are several activities that will have unbudgeted expenditure, i.e. will be overspent as at 30 June, and a number that will be underspent. The next part of this report explains what the high-level drivers are for the overspend at the activity level.

Coastal Structures - Forecast $52,000 over budget

5.2 Coastal Structures Maintenance $24,000: The maintenance budget overspend was driven by unexpected repairs needed for coastal structures. Severe weather conditions caused more damage than anticipated, necessitating unbudgeted maintenance work.

5.3 Debt financing costs of $24,000: The higher interest costs were a result of higher interest rates on existing loans than were budgeted.

Parks and Reserves Forecast $321,000 over budget

5.4 Debt financing costs of $60,000: The higher interest costs were a result of higher interest rates on existing loans than were budgeted.

5.5 Unbudgeted maintenance costs $240,000: The increase in expenditure is partly due to the increase in the number of reserves the Council has to maintain. There has been an increase of approximately 102 hectares of reserve area since July 2020. Maintenance for these areas has now been included in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 budget.

Building - forecast surplus of $317,000

5.6 Additional revenue in the building area. Staff were conservative in the Long Term Plan (LTP) given the economic climate. Fees collected in this space have been higher than what was budgeted.

Flood Protection and River Control Works – forecast surplus of $152,000

5.7 Debt financing costs of $101,000: The higher interest costs were a result of higher interest rates on existing loans than were budgeted.

5.8 Additional Gravel Sales of $250,000: Offsetting the higher interest rates was the collection of gravel income over and above budget expectations.

Governance – forecast deficit of $100,000

5.9 SOLGM (Taituarā) subscriptions $104,000: No budget was allowed for in the LTP for this, because of a budgeting error. This has been corrected in the 2025/2026 Annual Plan. This provides an avenue to build off sector advice and is very beneficial to Tasman District Council.

Waste Management and Minimisation - forecast deficit of $1.85 million

5.10 Debt financing costs of $388,000: The higher interest costs were a result of higher interest rates on existing loans than were budgeted.

5.11 The kerbside collection closed account is funded by a targeted rate and some charges for commercial recycling. We are forecasting a $580,000 deficit for this account, largely due to an inadvertent error in not including funding for the Material Recycling Facility (MRF) in the Long Term Plan 2024/2034 ($300,000), additional collection costs due to an agreed extension of the existing contract ($100,000), additional legal and procurement costs ($140,000) and reduced commercial revenue ($70,000).

5.12 The Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) closed account is largely funded by gate fees and we are forecasting a $820,000 deficit in this account. This is due to a decrease in net revenue from waste received ($485,000), increased reactive maintenance ($140,000, 100% increase), routine maintenance ($125,000, 234%) and site operations ($100,000, 8%). The reduction in net revenue is largely due to a 45% drop in revenue at Richmond RRC, increased reactive maintenance largely due to compactor and waste bin repairs and routine maintenance due to contractual obligations and good asset management limiting savings budgeted in the LTP.

5.13 The illegal dumping and hazardous waste activity is funded by the General Rate and we are forecasting a $70,000 deficit. This is largely driven by increased illegal dumping collection and disposal costs ($33,000 and $10,000) and costs to identify illegal dumping offenders ($26,000).

5.14 The waste minimisation account is fully funded by the central government Waste Disposal Levy and is forecast to conclude the year on budget. We are proposing to fund transport of recyclable materials, public place recycling, development of waste policy and diversion of hazardous waste from landfill from this account and this was not previously budgeted.

Stormwater - forecast deficit of $525,000

5.15 Debt financing costs of $428,000: The higher interest costs were a result of higher interest rates on existing loans than were budgeted.

5.16 Miscellaneous Costs $97,000: Reactive maintenance costs from maintaining waterways are higher as well as insurance costs that will mean an unbudgeted overspend occurs.

Transportation, Roads and Footpaths - forecast deficit of $770,000

5.17 Debt financing costs of $392,000: The higher interest costs were a result of higher interest rates on existing loans than were budgeted.

5.18 Landscape maintenance (street trees and planted garden beds) costs of $200,000. It is noted that this budget was reduced by 50% in the LTP, compared to previous year.

5.19 Litter bin clearing $240,000 – The funding was inadvertently removed from the LTP for this activity. Discontinuing work this financial year is not considered a valid option and no consultation has occurred on what would be a significant change in level of service to the community if the Council removed the litter bins.

Wastewater - forecast deficit of $995,000

5.20 Debt financing costs of $875,000: The higher interest costs were a result of higher interest rates on existing loans than were budgeted.

5.21 Maintenance $242,000: The Wastewater activity has a forecast over-expenditure of $242,000 and this is primarily due to the increased reactive maintenance that has occurred to date.

5.22 It is noted that if sewer blockages continue at the same rate as experienced to date, then the forecast over-expenditure will be realised. However, if it reduces then the forecast deficit should reduce as well.

Water Supply - forecast deficit of $2.3 million

5.23 Debt financing costs of $380,000: The higher interest costs were a result of higher interest rates on existing loans than were budgeted.

5.24 Water Maintenance $1.8 million: Higher reactive maintenance costs have been incurred throughout the year. Around 80% of this forecast overrun is in the Water Supply activity and primarily because of the increased level of reactive maintenance.

5.25 The inadvertent removal of around $523,000 funding in the Long Term Plan 2024/2034 for routine monitoring and maintenance has also contributed to the over-expenditure. This funding has been reinstated in the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Sale of the unencumbered ETS credits

5.26 ETS Market Conditions - The ETS market does go through periods of increased volatility and then can go through periods where it is a bit more composed. It is always hard to look forward and see where we may be or what the dynamic would look like in a few months. The Jarden Group (an independent investment and advisory group) have advised the Council in April:

“that for example, NZUs in the mid $50s now have surprised many. The weakness at the moment appears to be driven by the apparent oversupply of NZUs and the volume that is sitting in the stockpile overhanging the market. First auction of the year declined with no bids and there are plenty of foresters selling to raise funds which has kept pressure on the price.”

5.27 Other advice from PF Olsen suggests:

“prices have tended to be subdued from Jan to April and pick up from May onwards. While we cannot guarantee that prices will rally again as of this May, the historic trend suggests they are likely to. For this reason, our recommendation would be to hold off selling NZUs till, say, mid-May and then start selling in 10k increments over a month or two to average out any spot price fluctuations.”

5.28 For these reasons, staff recommend that the actual sale timetable be agreed with professional advisors with a clear view to sell prior to 30 June 2025, but still subject to professional advice on staging the sales to achieve the best overall price.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 The Council is expecting to be overspent by a net $6.4 million at the end of this financial year. This can be reduced to $3.4 million by selling $3.0 million of unencumbered ETS credits before 30 June 2025.

6.2 This will mean that over the following five years, the Council will have to rate for an additional $3.4 million (plus interest) to fund this year’s increased operational deficit.

6.3 While this will create additional rating pressure in future years, it will mean the Council can spread the impact out over five years rather than rating for the full $3.4 million in the 2025/2026 year.

6.4 Repaying the deficit over five years will result in a higher net debt figure for the Council than initially planned. This revised figure for 2025/2026 will be included in the Council's approval of the final Annual Plan 2025/2026 scheduled for the Council meeting on 25 June 2025.

6.5 The Council has already committed to selling $3.0 million of unencumbered ETS credits overseen by the Enterprise Activity to seed fund a Diversified Resilience Fund. This proposal to sell a further $3.0 million of unencumbered ETS credits will leave few credits available for future use.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the overall $6.4 million rates funded over expenditure and approve the sale of $3.0 million of unencumbered ETS credits before 30 June 2025.	The Council will not breach the expenditure rules set out in its delegation register. The essential work carried out that caused budgets to be exceeded will be funded. The sale of ETS credits reduces the future impacts on rates increases.	It creates a precedent that unbudgeted expenditure will be approved. Overspending the approved budgets will impact the Council’s goodwill and confidence within the community
2.	Decline to approve the $6.4 million rates overspend and decline to approve the sale of $3.0 million of unencumbered ETS credits before 30 June.	The Council will breach the staff delegation register and have unauthorised and unbudgeted expenditure. The Council would need to provide clear direction around what to stop operational spending on in May and June 2025 to ensure it does not overspend the total budget by 30 June 2025. This approach would not be a realistic option.	The delegation register was created as a mechanism to allow staff to gain approval for overspends. Not approving would suggest that the delegation register needs to be amended. The Council will breach the delegation register. At this stage of the financial year, it would be impossible not to overspend.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Approve the overall $6.4 million rates funded over expenditure and approve the sale of $3.0 million of unencumbered ETS credits before 30 June 2025.

The Council will not breach the expenditure rules set out in its delegation register.

The essential work carried out that caused budgets to be exceeded will be funded.

The sale of ETS credits reduces the future impacts on rates increases.

It creates a precedent that unbudgeted expenditure will be approved.

Overspending the approved budgets will impact the Council’s goodwill and confidence within the community

Decline to approve the $6.4 million rates overspend and decline to approve the sale of $3.0 million of unencumbered ETS credits before 30 June.

The Council will breach the staff delegation register and have unauthorised and unbudgeted expenditure.

The Council would need to provide clear direction around what to stop operational spending on in May and June 2025 to ensure it does not overspend the total budget by 30 June 2025. This approach would not be a realistic option.

The delegation register was created as a mechanism to allow staff to gain approval for overspends. Not approving would suggest that the delegation register needs to be amended.

The Council will breach the delegation register. At this stage of the financial year, it would be impossible not to overspend.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 A key enabling document that Tasman District Council has is the delegations document. This is where the Council agrees what delegations are given to the Chief Executive and staff. The Chief Executive is obligated to ensure that Council staff operate within those delegations.

8.2 At present, Tasman District Council will breach those delegations for having unbudgeted and unauthorised expenditure unless the Council approves the additional funding requested in this report.

8.3 This report ensures that the additional expenditure is appropriately authorised, and funding agreed.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 Staff have assessed the significance of most of the decisions proposed in this report. The significance of the combined set of changes including the authorisation of additional unbudgeted expenditure is considered to be medium.

9.2 No formal engagement is proposed as the elected members can rely on their knowledge of the views and preferences of their communities in making a decision.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	Generally low but some members of the community with a particular interest in Council finances will have a higher interest.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Yes	The Annual Plan for 2025/2026 and the following four financial years will increase rates to recover the $3.5 million rates overspend and additional interest payments.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No	The Annual Plan for 2025/2026 and the following four financial years will increase rates to recover the $3.5 million rates overspend and additional interest payments.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	medium	The impacts of repaying the $3.5 million deficit over the following five years will raise rates approximately 0.5% per annum.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The Council anticipates issuing a press release regarding this item and the decision at the conclusion of the meeting.

11. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

11.1 The recommendation to approve unbudgeted operating expenditure, if approved, mitigates the risk of spending an amount higher than the authorised 2024/25 budget.

11.2 There is a risk that the sale of ETS credits is delayed or does not achieve the financial outcome sought. To mitigate this risk the actual sale timetable will be discussed and be agreed with our professional advisors with a clear view to sell prior to 30 June 2025, but subject to professional advice on staging the sales to achieve the best overall price.

12. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

12.1 The overall impact if any on climate resilience and adaptation is likely to be minor.

13. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

13.1 The Council is attempting to deliver on its vision Thriving and Resilient Tasman Communities and the strategic priorities in the LTP 2024-2034. This approval will ensure it is very transparent around breaches to its delegation document and ultimately its Financial Strategy.

14. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

14.1 By agreeing to the annual budget overspends and allowing staff to mitigate the overspends by selling ETS credits, the Council will ensure it remains within its Council approved delegations while mitigating the financial impact on ratepayers.

15. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

15.1 Staff anticipate issuing a press release regarding this item and the decision at the conclusion of the meeting.

15.2 Proceed to engage with our advisors and move to sell the unencumbered ETS credits to release $3.0 million of additional funds to partly offset the forecast overspend.

16. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.4 Hamama Water Supply - Approval for Renewal Expenditure

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Carl Botha, Team Leader-Water Supply; Mike Schruer, Waters and Wastes Manager; Matthew McGlinchey, Financial Performance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-05-5

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Council for unbudgeted expenditure related to a section of pipe renewal in the Hamama Water Supply Scheme.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Hamama Water Supply Scheme operates as a closed account, which is managed by the Hamama Water Supply Committee. The Council's involvement is primarily to collect the rates on behalf of the Committee.

2.2 The account balance as at 1 July 2024 was $56,720, and none of this has been spent since 1 July 2024.

2.3 The Hamama Water Supply Committee has proposed a pipe renewal project that will cover approximately 200 metres, with an estimated cost of $20,000. Currently, there is no budget allocated in the Long-Term Plan 2024/2034 for this specific project. However, the Committee wants to utilise some of its account balance to fund the project. As a result, this expenditure will not directly impact the Hamama Water Supply rates.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Hamama Water Supply - Approval for Renewal Expenditure report, RCN25-05-5; and

2. approves unbudgeted Capital expenditure of $20,000 from the Hamama Water Supply account balance of $56,720; and

3. notes that the Hamama Water Supply Committee has not confirmed when the expenditure will be incurred, so $20,000 will be allocated as a spend in the 2024/2025 financial year and any outstanding funding from 2024/2025 will be included in the carry forward report for 2025/2026.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Hamama Water Supply Scheme includes old water supply pipes that were installed in 1959. The Committee has systematically renewed these pipes as needed, particularly when there is an increase in failures in specific sections of the network.

4.2 The current project involves renewing a 200-metre section of pipeline, which is connect to a 600-metre section that was previously renewed. This section that is being renewed is part of the main pipeline from the storage tanks and prior to any connections, therefore, it is the main supply to the community.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Context

5.1.1 The Hamama Water Supply scheme has ageing infrastructure, specifically the old water supply pipes installed in 1959. These pipes have been prone to failures, necessitating systematic renewals to increase the reliability of the water supply to the community.

5.2 Proposed Action

5.2.1 The Hamama Water Supply Committee has requested approval to renew a 200-metre section of the trunk main that is connected to a previously renewed 600-metre section. This section of trunk main renewal is essential to maintain the integrity of supply from the storage tanks and before any connections to the community.

5.2.2 The Committee has not confirmed the timing of this work so it is unclear what expenditure will occur in 2024/25 and whether some or all of it will be incurred in 2025/2026.

5.3 Rationale

5.3.1 Infrastructure integrity: Renewing this section of the pipeline will enhance the reliability and efficiency of the water supply system, reducing the risk of failures and ensuring a consistent water supply to the community.

5.3.2 Financial viability: The project is financially viable as the Hamama Water Supply Committee has requested that some of the account balance of $56,720 be utilised to fund the $20,000 renewal. The account balance is a consequence of under expenditure in previous years and has been funded from Hamama Water Supply rates so there is no need to increase rates to recover this cost.

5.3.3 Community impact: Ensuring a reliable water supply is critical for the well-being of the community, and this project will reduce the risk of further disruptions.

5.4 Conclusion

5.4.1 The proposed pipe renewal project is a necessary investment in the Hamama Water Supply Scheme's infrastructure. By utilising the account balance, the project can be completed without impacting the rates for Hamama, ensuring both financial prudence and community benefit. Approval for this unbudgeted expenditure is recommended to proceed with the project and enhance the water supply system's integrity.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve unbudgeted expenditure	Ensures a reliable water supply and reduces the risk of water loss due to pipe failures, promoting efficient water use. Utilises existing reserve funds, avoiding additional financial burden on community.	Utilises a significant portion of the reserve funds, potentially limiting resources for future projects. Construction activities may temporarily disrupt the local environment.
2.	Defer pipe renewal project	Preserves the reserve funds for other potential urgent needs or future projects. Avoids immediate environmental disruption from construction activities.	Increased risk of water supply disruptions due to potential pipe failures, and continued risk of water loss due to leaks in the aging pipeline. Potential higher costs in the future if the pipe condition worsens and emergency repairs are needed. May erode community trust.
3.	Partial renewal of pipeline	Addresses the most critical sections of the pipeline, reducing the risk of immediate failures. Minimises immediate environmental disruption by limiting the scope of construction.	Continued risk of water loss in sections not renewed, as partial renewal may not fully resolve the reliability issues, leading to potential future disruptions. May result in higher overall costs if multiple partial renewals are needed over time. May lead to mixed perceptions within the community regarding the adequacy of the solution.

6.2 Staff recommend Option 1, to approve the unbudgeted expenditure.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 There are no significant legal matters arising from this decision. The Council can authorise unbudgeted expenditure from reserve of funds.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 No engagement with Iwi has been initiated regarding the unbudgeted expenditure required for the pipe renewal project.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 We have considered the significance of this decision to be Low and consider that there is no further engagement or consultation required for the Council to make this decision.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The decision to use reserve funds for the pipe renewal project is unlikely to generate high public interest or controversy, as it involves utilising existing reserve funds without impacting the rates.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The project will have positive social and environmental impacts by ensuring a reliable water supply and reducing the risk of pipe failures.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The impact of the pipe renewal project is expected to be long-term, as it will enhance the infrastructure and reliability of the water supply system.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The water supply infrastructure is considered a strategic asset, essential for the community's well-being and daily operations.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	The decision aims to maintain and improve the existing service levels by addressing infrastructure needs.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	The proposal utilises reserve funds from the closed account managed by the Hamama Committee.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A	The decision does not involve the sale of any interest in a CCO or CCTO.
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/A	The proposal does not involve entering a private sector partnership or contract for the delivery of Council activities.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A	The decision does not involve the Council exiting from or entering a new group of activities.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	This decision does not require consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai relating to freshwater.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The Hamama Water Supply Committee has approached the Waters and Wastes Team regarding its proposal for the pipe renewal project, emphasising the need for approval of unbudgeted expenditure amounting to $20,000. This expenditure is to be funded from the existing closed account reserve of $56,720, ensuring that there will be no immediate impact on the Hamama Water Supply rates. The Committee has already agreed to proceed with the project and now seeks the Council's formal approval to utilise the reserve funds for this essential infrastructure upgrade.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 There is an existing reserve which will fund the $20,000. The reserve has been built up over several years. The build-up has occurred because planned work was not required as expected and also because the reserve balance gets interest revenue from the Councils internal treasury function.

11.2 Using $20,000 for this project will deplete the reserve but it is being spent on a project that has benefit across the scheme. However, the spend is exactly what a reserve like this should be spent on.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Proceeding with proposal

12.1.1 Financial risk is low as utilising $20,000 from reserve of $56,720.

12.1.2 Environmental risk is medium due to temporary disruption to local environment.

12.1.3 Operational risk is low due to temporary disruption to water supply during construction.

12.1.4 Reputational risk is low as the Council does not manage the water supply, only collects the rates for the scheme.

12.2 Not proceeding with proposal

12.2.1 Infrastructure risk is high as the likelihood of failures increase due to aging pipes.

12.2.2 Financial risk is medium as delaying the project may result in higher costs in the future due to deterioration of pipes and emergency repairs.

12.2.3 Social risk is high as water disruptions can negatively impact the community’s quality of life.

12.2.4 Reputational risk is high as failing to address the aging infrastructure may erode community trust.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The proposal in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide’.

13.2 The pipe renewal project enhances the resilience of the water supply system and reduces environmental impact by improving leak prevention, thereby conserving water.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 This funding recommendation is generally in accordance with the Council’s Policy and Strategic Plans.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Staff recommend that the unbudgeted expenditure be approved from the reserve funds to allow for better future resilience and reliability of the Hamama Water Supply Scheme. This approval will ensure that the necessary pipe renewal project can proceed without impacting the existing budget or rates, thereby enhancing the infrastructure and securing a sustainable water supply for the community.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If this unbudgeted expenditure is approved, approved budgets will be updated, and reserve funding will be used for the pipe renewal project.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.5 Chlorination Exemption for Upper Tākaka Water Supply

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Evan McKenzie, Team Leader - Water Quality & Safety; Mike Schruer, Waters and Wastes Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-05-6

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To inform the Council of our legal obligation under the Water Services Act to either chlorinate Upper Tākaka Water Supply or seek an exemption from the requirement to provide residual disinfection.

1.2 To advise that the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai expects the Council to inform them of how we will address the lack of a residual disinfection by 9 May 2025.

1.3 To seek approval from the Council to apply to the Water Services Authority for an exemption.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Section 31(j) of the Water Services Act requires water suppliers to provide for residual disinfection within their water supply reticulation unless an exemption from this requirement is obtained from the Water Services Regulator. There are no viable alternatives to using chlorine as the residual disinfectant.

2.2 The Regulator wrote to Council staff on 31 March 2025 to request our plan of how we will address the current lack of residual disinfection in the Upper Tākaka supply. This plan is required by 9 May 2025 although the Regulator has advised there is some flexibility with this date.

2.3 There is significant cost to install permanent chlorination for a small population however there does remain a low risk to public health in the absence of chlorination.

2.4 Council staff intend to apply for an exemption from the residual disinfection requirement however there is a need seek the Council’s endorsement of this approach.

2.5 If an exemption is applied for, there is no guarantee that it will be granted and if not, the Council will be required to install chlorination within a timeframe that is acceptable to the Regulator.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Chlorination Exemption for Upper Tākaka Water Supply report, RCN25-05-6; and

2. approves the compliance approach of seeking an exemption from the requirement to provide for residual disinfection of the Upper Tākaka Water Supply.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 District-wide consultation was held in 2020 regarding the Council’s intention to chlorinate all its water supplies and the feedback from a limited number of Upper Tākaka residents was that they did not want chlorine. The Council resolved to chlorinate all supplies however deferred this for Upper Tākaka in anticipation of the new Water Services Act and associated rules.

4.2 The Act confirmed that residual disinfection would be required for all water supplies, regardless of population served and the Regulator is now requiring the plan referred to in 2.2 above.

4.3 Council staff are currently conducting an informal email survey of residents to re-assess their appetite for permanent chlorination. Results are expected prior to 8 May 2025.

4.4 The estimated cost of installing permanent chlorination is $150,000 with ongoing operational costs thereafter.

4.5 The lack of residual disinfection does pose a risk of contamination and public health harm, for example from pipe breaks, backflow and if the main UV and filtration treatment system fails for any reason. However, because the population served (35) is small and the pipe network short and substantial storage is available in the event of a treatment malfunction, the risk is likely to be low.

4.6 The exemption application process involves an upfront fee of $5200 plus GST and any further costs that the Regulator might incur in the course of its assessment.

4.7 The application itself must cover a range of information that the Regulator specifies within its website guidance.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The issue is that there is a legal compulsion to permanently chlorinate the Upper Tākaka water supply but this appears to be opposed by the majority of residents and comes at significant cost.

5.2 Council staff are of the view that the public health risk is currently adequately managed and that there is no evidence that illness has been caused within the resident population because of there being no residual disinfection.

5.3 In essence, the benefit for the approximately 35 residents is likely to be outweighed by the costs associated with installing and operating permanent chlorination.

5.4 If an exemption application is rejected, staff accept that there will be no alternative to achieving compliance with the Water Services Act 31(j) than to install chlorination.

5.5 If an exemption was successful, the Council must re-apply for a continuation every five years.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 The financial implications of both approaches are below:

6.2 Seek exemption from chlorination

6.2.1 Application fees - upfront fee $5,200 and up to an estimated $5,000 in additional costs passed on by the Regulator during their review process.

6.2.2 Fees every five years to renew exemption – estimated $5,000 - $10,000.

6.3 Put chlorination in place for Upper Tākaka water supply

6.3.1 The capital cost of chlorination equipment was estimated in November 2024 at $150,000.

6.3.2 The ongoing cost to operate, test, and maintain the chlorination equipment and processes is estimated at $10,000 p.a.

6.3.3 These capital and operational costs are not specifically budgeted for but can be accommodated within the overall urban water club capital budget.

6.3.4 The cost of servicing the loan on the capital cost will be $8,000-13,000 p.a.

6.4 There is currently no budget allocated for this cost.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The two options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Apply for an exemption to the requirement to chlorinate.	If approved, the Council will be in compliance with section 31(j) of the Act for at least a period of five years. No extra capital or operational expenditure associated with installation of chlorination.	If approved, low health risk due to lack of residual disinfection barrier to contamination.
2.	Install chlorination	Adds a barrier to contamination in the supply that doesn’t currently exist.	Low benefit to cost ratio. Likely to be contrary to majority of residents’ preferences.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Apply for an exemption to the requirement to chlorinate.

If approved, the Council will be in compliance with section 31(j) of the Act for at least a period of five years.

No extra capital or operational expenditure associated with installation of chlorination.

If approved, low health risk due to lack of residual disinfection barrier to contamination.

Install chlorination

Adds a barrier to contamination in the supply that doesn’t currently exist.

Low benefit to cost ratio.

Likely to be contrary to majority of residents’ preferences.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 Water Services Act – section 31(j) – Requirement to provide for residual disinfection;

8.2 Water Services Act – section 58 – Exemptions to residual disinfection

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Iwi have not been engaged regarding the proposed exemption application. Staff consider that this issue is confined to the Upper Tākaka community of approximately 33 residents.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	High level of interest within Upper Tākaka community as measured by email survey
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	Unlikely to be significant direct cultural/economic/environmental effects on community if an exemption is not obtained and chlorination implemented.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	Unless an exemption is obtained, chlorination will become permanent.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No	Although the Council’s water supplies are a strategic asset the Upper Tākaka water treatment plant and reticulation system is a small component of the Council’s water supply activity
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Moderate	A decision to seek an exemption from chlorination will not in itself change levels of service. A decision not to seek an exemption will result in a definite requirement to chlorinate and that would change the Level of Service for the Upper Takaka water consumers.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Moderate	Estimated capital cost of implementing chlorination $150,000 plus approximately $10,000 p.a. running costs. Costs would be distributed within the urban ‘Club’.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	High	Te Mana o te Wai considerations are required as part of an exemption application to the Regulator. The Water Services Act is the legislation that requires chlorination and allows for an exemption application.

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 As described in section 4 above, communication with the Upper Tākaka community occurred in 2020 and again, more informally in April 2025.

11.2 The community will be informed of this decision in due course – whether it be to seek an exemption or to implement chlorination.

11.3 The community will be informed of the outcome of the exemption application, if an application is sought.

11.4 Ongoing communication is occurring with Taumata Arowai.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If an exemption is sought, there is a risk that should it be declined the cost of the application – approximately $10,000 – would be a sunk cost.

12.2 Chlorine is recognised as a barrier to contamination within water networks and is in place in all other water supplies managed by the Council. A successful exemption application will mean that this barrier will not be used in Upper Tākaka and therefore an illness outbreak could occur. This does not increase the current risk though as it maintains the status quo. The existing risk of such an outbreak is considered low due to the small population involved and the current risk mitigation practices in place, which do include temporary emergency chlorination.

12.3 If the Council decided not to seek an exemption, it would need to install chlorination to comply with its statutory requirements. Given recent feedback it is likely that the Upper Tākaka community could be dissatisfied with the Council if it did not apply for an exemption.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The matter requiring a decision was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide’.

13.2 Installation of the assets needed to deliver chlorine, and the ongoing energy required, over and above existing energy requirements is considered to be of negligible impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 Drinking-Water Quality Management Policy – 2020. The purpose of this policy is – “The Council is committed to demonstrating good practice in the management of drinking-water quality in order to provide safe, high-quality drinking water that consistently meets the expectations of its consumers and the requirements of all relevant drinking-water legislation”.

14.2 The Water Services Act allows for suppliers to seek an exemption from chlorination and therefore the Council would only be in breach of the Act if Upper Tākaka continued to be unchlorinated without an exemption granted.

14.3 As previously described, chlorine provides a barrier to contamination and without it, the Council leaves the community at higher risk of an illness outbreak than if it were present but as stated above, the overall risk is considered low. It can be noted that chlorine does not reduce risk to zero.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The unbudgeted cost to provide permanent chlorination, the likely low risk of public health harm resulting from keeping the supply unchlorinated and the community opposition to chlorination is sufficient justification for seeking an exemption from the Water Services Act requirement to provide residual disinfection in the Upper Tākaka water supply.

15.2 Such an application may not be granted in which case, the Council will have no option but to implement permanent chlorination in conformance with the Act.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The decision on whether to proceed with the exemption application; staff will communicate that immediately to the regulator and to the Upper Tākaka community.

16.2 If an exemption is applied for, staff will engage with the regulator’s Exemptions Team regarding how to proceed, prior to the end of May 2025.

16.3 If an exemption application is not to be applied for, staff will immediately engage with the Regulator regarding acceptable timelines within which to implement permanent chlorination.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.6 Wakatū Non-Vesting Option

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Marie Callander, Corporate Counsel; Kim Arnold, Senior Infrastructure Planning Advisor; Alan Bywater, Team Leader - Community Policy
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-05-7

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is:

1.1.1 To provide an update to the Council about progress in establishing a non-vesting option for roading and reserves in leasehold subdivisions being undertaken on Māori corpus land which the legal owners do not wish to vest but are happy for the Council to manage and control; and

1.1.2 To approve staff finalising an easement arrangement over a portion of their land at
11 Poole Street, Motueka which would usually be vested in the Council for a utilities corridor or other non-roading purpose as part of the subdivision (into leasehold lots) process.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 In April 2022, Wakatū Incorporation (Wakatū) presented to the Council requesting that an arrangement be agreed under which the Council would manage and control land to be used for roading and reserves but without the land actually vesting in the Council. This request originally related to the property at 11 Poole Street Motueka but has subsequently also been applied to the Motueka West subdivision being undertaken by Wakatū.

2.2 The Council participated in workshops during 2022 to canvass possible solutions to the requested non-vesting option and since that time staff have been working with Wakatū to agree an easement solution for roads and a lease solution for reserves.

2.3 The form of an easement arrangement has largely been agreed with Wakatū but there remains an unresolved issue in relation to the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA Waka Kotahi) portion (51%) of the road maintenance costs for the non-vested roads. Currently NZTA is not able to fund their share of road maintenance for these roads if they are not owned by the Council.

2.4 The portion of 11 Poole Street over which Wakatū wishes to grant an easement to the Council (instead of vesting the land in the Council) is for a utilities corridor. Although staff cannot guarantee that an easement will not ever create an impediment to NZTA funding, the risk is very small that the easement area would become an area involving road maintenance and NZTA funding. Accordingly, transportation staff consider the very small risk of a NZTA funding issue arising is an acceptable risk and the form of easement that has been negotiated with Wakatū can be granted to the Council.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Wakatū Non-Vesting Option Report, RCN25-05-7; and

2. approves Council staff and the Council’s external legal advisors (at the landowner’s cost) preparing the final form of an easement instrument and any other documents necessary for the grant of the easement (Easement Documents) to be entered into (as an alternative to vesting the land in the Council) in relation to a portion of the land at 11 Poole Street owned by The Proprietors of Wakatū Incorporated; and

3. approves the Council entering into the Easement Documents and that the Easement Documents may be executed by:

i. (in the case of agreements) the Chief Executive Officer; and

ii. (in the case of deeds) two elected members; and

4. approves the Chief Executive Officer doing such other things in connection with the Easement Documents as the Chief Executive Officer may consider necessary (on advice from the Council’s external legal advisors); and

5. notes staff are continuing to discuss with Wakatū Incorporation about a solution to the shortfall in funding for road maintenance due to New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi not providing road maintenance funding for private roads over Māori corpus land. Staff expect to be able to bring a report to the Council about these discussions in June 2025; and

6. notes staff are continuing to advocate with New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi for a solution for funding its share of road maintenance costs under a non-vesting arrangement for leasehold subdivisions.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Council’s transportation staff have been involved in the preparation and review of the proposed easement, and confirm that:

4.1.1 it allows the non-vested area of 11 Poole Street, Motueka to be managed as if it were road;

4.1.2 the strip of land is likely to be utilised as service berm and/or landscaped amenity area, neither of which are part of the NZTA-funded maintenance activity;

4.1.3 although staff cannot guarantee that an easement will not ever create an impediment to NZTA funding, the risk is very small that the easement area would become an area involving road maintenance and NZTA funding; and

4.1.4 the very small risk of an NZTA funding issue arising is an acceptable risk so transportation staff consider that there are no financial implications associated with this small area being non-vested.

4.2 In relation to the Motueka West development, the Council has entered into Crown Infrastructure Acceleration Fund funding agreements with the Crown’s administrator, Kainga Ora Housing NZ, and Wakatū. These agreements allow for the option requested by Wakatū of not vesting roadways with the Council.

4.3 The Infrastructure Acceleration Fund agreements provide the Council some funding to accelerate infrastructure to support the development of the subdivision, but that funding is dependent on granting of the resource consent for the development and achieving housing outcomes. This process is not able to progress until the funding of the gap in road maintenance cost is resolved.

4.4 Staff have been working with Wakatū to agree an easement solution for the option where roads are not vested in the Council. The proposed easement instrument allows the Council all the usual powers of a Road Controlling Authority.

4.5 The form of an easement arrangement has largely been agreed with Wakatū but there remains an unresolved issue in relation to NZTA’s portion (51%) of the road maintenance costs for the non-vested roads. Within the Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) legislation, unless the roadways are registered as Māori roadway under Te Ture Whenua Māori Land Act, NZTA is not able to fund road maintenance for roads that are not owned by the Council.

4.6 Until the LTMA legislation changes to allow NZTA to fund its maintenance share, a solution is required to cover the funding gap in the interim.

4.7 Wakatū is considering applying to the Māori Land Court to seek a declaration that the roads are Māori roadway as a means of making them eligible for NZTA funding. To enable the development to proceed in the meantime, and to avoid us losing the Infrastructure Acceleration Funding there is a need to find a way to continue with the development.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Staff are comfortable the easement (and a lease for reserves) being agreed with Wakatū will provide the Council with the powers necessary for it to act as if it is the road controlling authority for the roads and to administer the reserves appropriately.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options for how the Council could obtain control and management of land for roading and reserves in leasehold subdivisions of Māori corpus land are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Approve the use of an easement for roads (and lease for reserves) instead of vesting of Māori corpus land with the Council.

Allows Wakatū (and potentially other owners of Māori land being subdivided) to retain their corpus land while still giving the Council the management and control needed for roading and reserves.

Is consistent with the Council’s intentions to work in partnership with iwi and with respect for their cultural values.

Allows housing outcomes for Motueka to be realised and provides greater certainty for the Council to obtain development contributions and future rates income.

More complicated than the usual vesting arrangements.

The need for a solution for road maintenance funding where applicable.

Require that land be vested in the Council in the usual way for roads and reserves

Simpler for the Council as it could follow its usual subdivision procedures.

Some subdivisions may not proceed. In this case housing outcomes for Motueka would not be achieved and the Council would not obtain Development Contributions and future rates income until the area is developed. Future relationship with Wakatū may be impacted.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The proposed roadway through the West Motueka subdivision is a ‘private road’ rather than a ‘road’ under the Local Government Act 1974 and therefore is not a ‘local road’ under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA).

7.2 While in principle the LTMA permits a Regional Land Transport Plan to include as an activity for National Land Transport Fund funding maintenance of a private road, under the current Government Policy Statement (GPS) that activity cannot receive funding as it falls outside the “Local Road Maintenance” activity class.

7.3 The position would be different if the proposed roadway was over Māori customary land or Māori freehold land, and the easement or roadway laid out by order of the Māori Land Court under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. That is because s22 of the LTMA expressly permits Waka Kotahi to treat a Māori roadway as a local road for the purposes of funding.

7.4 The position is arguably a policy lacuna, in that we understand the easement is intended to achieve a position similar to a Māori roadway but that reflects the particular historical context and legal status of the land. The position could be addressed by amendments to the next GPS, for example extending the “Local Road maintenance” activity class to allow maintenance of certain private roads to be funded or by change to the LTMA, both of which are long-term possibilities. The Māori Land Court declaration would also take several years to obtain and there is no certainty that it could be obtained.

7.5 The easement option would give the Council the rights that it needs as if it was a road controlling authority but a solution for funding the NZTA share of road maintenance costs still needs to be found.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 There has been extensive engagement with Wakatū on the basis that it represents the Māori owners of the land being subdivided.

8.2 Wider consultation has not been undertaken with Iwi since we understand that the views expressed by Wakatū about this non-vesting approach are not inconsistent with the views of Iwi and the land involved is all owned by an identifiable group represented by Wakatū.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 Given that the non-vesting easement arrangement has no financial implications, the significance is low.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	No financial implications.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The easement enables Wakatū to retain Māori corpus land which is important to it while still being able to undertake the development. Otherwise, there is not environmental, social or economic impact.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The decision is enduring but the impacts are not significant.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Staff will communicate with Wakatū about the decision in relation to 11 Poole Street.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 Provided the Council approves the recommendations, there are minimal financial or budgetary implications since Wakatū has covered the Council’s legal costs.

11.2 This report is focussed on a situation where there are no financial implications but the report to be brought to the Council in June 2025 will consider the wider financial implications where NZTA road maintenance funding is applicable.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There are no major risks associated with this decision.

12.2 However, if a solution is not found for the shortfall in NZTA road maintenance funding, then there is a risk that:

12.2.1 Infrastructure Acceleration Fund funding for the Motueka West subdivision may be lost; and

12.2.2 there may be a negative impact on Council’s future relationship with Wakatū; and

12.2.3 there may be negative ramifications for Council’s relationship with iwi generally.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The matters requiring a decision in this report were considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’.

13.2 The decisions requested in this report are to enable development of housing in Motueka to proceed in areas that are located close to the centre of Motueka township which will likely reduce vehicle movements and have a positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The Motueka West development includes cycling and walking links to schools and shops in central Motueka.

13.3 The locations of the developments, west of High Street, are in areas of reduced exposure to natural hazard risk and potential impacts of flooding and sea level rise. The support and enabling of these areas for housing development aligns with the Council’s and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change including the Tasman Climate Response Strategy and Action Plan, Emissions Reduction Plan, and National Adaptation Plan.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 The support and enabling of these areas for housing development in Poole Street and the proposed development in Motueka West, is consistent with the Future Development Strategy.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The granting of an easement (and a lease for reserves) to the Council instead of vesting land in the Council allows the Council to manage and control land for roads and reserves while enabling the Māori owners of the land to retain ownership of their corpus land.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Staff will:

16.1.1 finalise details for the easement; and

16.1.2 report back to the Council in June 2025 about progress with discussions with Wakatū.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.7 Tapawera Community Hub Location

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Martin Brown, Project Manager; Yulia Panfylova, Community Partnerships Coordinator
Report Authorisers:	Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy; Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-05-8

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To seek confirmation from the Council to continue progressing with the new Tapawera Hub building, acknowledging recently raised community concerns on the initial cost for the build, future running of the facility (personnel and costs) and noting there are already several other community buildings in Tapawera; and.

1.2 With that confirmation, the project team seeks a decision approving the new hub being located on Council land parcels within the Tapawera Memorial Park Reserve and adjoining ex-railway reserve land.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Tapawera Community Hub project was adopted in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan.

2.2 The Tapawera District Community Council (TDCC) owned Community Hall building located at 95 Main Road Tapawera, and this was the proposed location in the community feasibility study.

2.3 The TDCC intended to sell 95 Main Road Tapawera to the Council as part of the project. With the existing community hall building being demolished, the site would be used for the new hub.

2.4 Due diligence and a review of this location has raised challenges, and these are outlined in this report.

2.5 The project team is seeking approval from the Council to not progress with the 95 Main Road Tapawera site (location provided by the community as part of the Long-Term Plan) and approve the new hub being located on Council land within the Tapawera Memorial Recreational Reserve and adjoining ex-railway reserve land.

2.6 Note the future hub location will be determined by a cost and value benefit exercise for the hub in each of the three parcels.

2.7 In December 2024 and January 2025, a small contingent of the local Golden Downs community wrote to the Mayor and Chief Executive raising concerns over the fiscal prudence of a new hub with its costs to build and run. They suggested that the Council consultation had not reached far enough with many residents unaware of the proposed work. Finally, that Tapawera has needs which require more urgent attention and the $2.68 million could be better used to bring wider outcomes for the community of 2000 residents.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Tapawera Community Hub Location report RCN25-05-8; and

2. confirms continuation of the Tapawera Community Hub project, acknowledging a contingent of the local community does not support this development; and

3. agrees that the new Tapawera Community Hub will not be located on the Tasman District Council land at 95 Main Road Tapawera; and

4. notes that the review of the draft Lakes-Murchison Reserve Management Plan, which includes information and consultation questions on potential Tapawera Community Hub locations at Tapawera Memorial Park, was publicly notified on 11 April 2025, with submissions closing on 16 June 2025 and hearings and deliberations scheduled for
3 July 2025; and

5. approves that the Tapawera Community Hub facility can be located on Council land, whether at Tapawera Memorial Park, or within the ex-railway reserve, as identified in the agenda report; and

6. acknowledges the concept design of the Tapawera Community Hub facility will commence from July 2025.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Tapawera Hub Project was adopted in the 2024/2034 Long Term Plan. A community co-funded budget of $2.68 million is allocated over 2025/26 and 2026/67 to deliver a community hub in Tapawera.

(The community is to meet $900,000 of the cost, with $500,000 already in place in the form of Department of Internal Affairs funding which has been extended to June 2026).

4.2 The Tapawera Connect group commissioned a feasibility study. This resulted in a feasibility concept for the hub comprising of a 344m² building located on the current TDCC Community Hall site (95 Main Road Tapawera).

4.3 The Tapawera Connect feasibility concept included a large (multi-use) meeting/workshop space, two small meeting rooms, commercial kitchen, storage areas, open areas for general use, office space for community groups, small office for break out/care activation room (interview and non-medical consult) and toilets. Additionally, the Local Op Shop was also included (approximately 75m² alone).

4.4 The Tapawera Connect feasibility concept is below.

4.5 The 95 Main Road Tapawera site was planned to be sold to Tasman District Council. The Council would then own the site with the Waharoa (Kahurangi Gateway), other heritage society artifacts (Kiwi station and Army billet buildings) and Armistice Stone.

4.6 Early due diligence for the 95 Main Road Tapawera location, highlighted the following points,

4.6.1 The site transfer/sale is not likely to trigger any tenths or buy back as it was in private ownership until TDCC purchased it in 1987.

4.6.2 Using the existing site and replacing the building at this location prevents a further building being added to the seven facilities already in Tapawera.

4.6.3 TDCC may be required to repay the original State Services Commission grant ($25,000 was provided in 1987).

4.6.4 Local parties raised concerns (meeting of 26 September 2024) over the demolition of the existing building (citing local historical value). There is a risk of escalation potentially with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) involvement.

4.6.5 Adaptive reuse of the existing building would be expensive (seismic work, general utilisation and improving the current buildings layout and facilities) and is also unlikely to meet the needs of the facility outlined in the feasibility study.

4.6.6 There will be a cost of demolishing the existing buildings (could be $80,000 or more)

4.6.7 There are overhead power lines dissecting the site (to move or bury these would attract a reasonable cost)

4.6.8 There will be costs to protect the Kahurangi Waharoa during construction

4.6.9 There are community gardens on site which may be impacted by the construction

4.6.10 The Community expectation is the land value is offset against the $900,000 community co-funding.

4.6.10.1 95 Main Road Tapawera has a QV of $330,000, the DIA funding is $500,000, totalling $830,000 of the $900,000.

4.6.10.2 This results in only $2.37m being left to spend to demolish, build the new building facility and provide all external and infrastructure works.

4.7 The 95 Main Road Tapawera site, is a constrained site with the Waharoa/ Heritage society buildings in place, and overhead power lines. Discussions have also raised potential of boundary encroachments by neighbouring buildings.

A aerial view of a house

Description automatically generated

4.8 With the 95 Main Road Tapawera site, having constraints and potential costs attached which the Council would inherit once they owned the land, the Project Sponsor requested that alternative locations be explored.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Exploration of other potential locations for the hub highlighted three alternative Council owned areas which are shown on the aerial image below.

5.1.1 Highlighted Area 1 - Tapawera Memorial Park Recreational Reserve, on the elevated Reserve land behind shearing sheds. This is recreational reserve land (designated under the Reserves Act 1977). Under the Reserves Management Act 1977, the Council would need to be satisfied the new building is permitted under Section 53 (1) (g). and it can be leased or licenced under S54(1)(d) Lease or Licence of Recreation reserve for carrying out trade, business or occupation. Recreational

‘provided that where the Minister considers it to be in the public interest, the administering body may, with the prior consent of the Minister(*), erect buildings and structures for public recreation and enjoyment not directly associated with outdoor recreation’.

*Section 53(2) Note: Administering body is a local authority, so is not necessary to obtain consent, authority or approval of Minister (under vested powers).

5.1.2 Highlighted Area 2 - Tapawera Memorial Park Reserve ex-railway reserve. This is Fee Simple land and is not governed under the Reserves Act 1977, as such has less constraints than neighbouring recreational reserve land. The land is at the entrance to the Memorial Reserve off Matai Crescent. The Reserves Management Committee would need to support building in this location.

5.1.3 Highlighted Area 3 - this is the extension of the ex-railway reserve across Matai Crescent. This is Fee Simple land and is not governed under the Reserves Act 1977, as such has less constraints than neighbouring reserve land. The northern part of this site was initially rejected by the community as having sub optimal access, uninviting aspect, limited visibility from the road and it was felt to have limited expansion opportunity.

5.1.4 Highlighted Areas 1 and 2 have overlays for inundation in a 1% AEP event (Flood modelling map below). Building in both locations would need to mitigate risk of inundation by building the sites up and managing any potential overland flow to not impact other private land and building owners.

Area 3 is not subject to the levels of inundation shown in Areas 1 and 2

5.1.5 It is likely infrastructure services and external works costs would be higher for a hub on Area 1 or 2. For example, due to existing wastewater service pipe levels (see diagram below), wastewater from Area 1 and 2 potentially may need a new wastewater main to tie into the existing main on Main Road Tapawera, approximately 250m away (dashed red line), or further down the existing main through the neighbouring ex-railway reserve, approximately 185m away (dash/dot red line). Area 3 has access to existing services more readily available.

Existing service pipes

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Original proposed site with 344m² building	Is not on any reserve land and is a privately owned site. Is on the main road. Is well serviced by three waters and power Has minimal modelled flooding (1% AEP)	Requires a land purchase by the Council. The land value of $330,000 (approximately) will be removed from the overall budget Is a constrained site with overhead powerlines, other historic buildings, Kahurangi Waharoa and community gardens. Will require demolition of the existing building which is not supported by some residents (citing local heritage value) May exceed the available budget due to sites constraints and land purchase costs.
2.	Area 1) including 333m² building	Enables use of recreational reserve which will promote a greater activation of the area. Has a higher level of community support as a potential hub location. Is on the cycleway (Tasman’s Great Taste Trail) May appeal to other groups (i.e. Rugby Club) in time. Allows for future expansion.	Is in an area of 100mm to 500mm of modelled stormwater inundation. And will require building consent approval under Section 72. Means the community needs to actively source the remaining $400,000 funding required for the project or reduce the scope. Has no road frontage. Possibly could be cut off in a flood (access road and parking). Will attract the highest infrastructure costs and requires the longest runs for three waters infrastructure, Power/Telco services, driveways and additional parking (to be level with the building). Will require permission to build on reserve land from the Council (acting for the Minister of Conservation under the Reserves Act 1977) noting this may constrain the activities which can be undertaken at the hub. To build the hub in this area will likely incur the highest cost of the three areas and is likely to exceed the current budget. (Due to the higher services infrastructure, access and driveway costs to connect to this area).
3.	Area 2) including 333m² building	Enables use of ex-railway reserve which will promote a greater activation of the area. Is not land governed under the Reserves Act 1977. Has a level of community support as a potential hub location. Has road frontage. Is on the cycleway (Tasman’s Great Taste Trail). Allows for some future expansion.	Is in an area of between 100mm to 700mm of modelled stormwater inundation. And will require Building Consent approval under Section 72. Means the community need to actively source the remaining $400,000 funding required for the project or reduce the scope. Will attract higher infrastructure costs with no wastewater infrastructure in the Matai Cresent and to the reserve boundary and hub location. Water will need to be connected to the site from the road. To build the hub in this area will likely be the second highest cost of the three areas and may slightly exceed the current budget. (Due to services infrastructure and mitigating the inundation to the area).
4.	Area 3) including. 334m² building	Enables use of ex-railway reserve and promotes a greater activation of the area and has the benefit of being nearer to amenities including playground and skate park. Is not land governed under the Reserves Act 1977. There are two potential sites for the hub, i) Northern end, (no road frontage) and, ii) Southern, Matai Crescent entry (with road frontage). Is on the cycleway (Tasman’s Great Taste Trail). Allows for some limited future extension. It is outside of the modelled inundation (1% AEP). A hub in this area will more likely keep within the budget having lower infrastructure costs.	The community still likely needs to actively source the remaining $400,000 funding required for the project, but this may be possible to reduce. The Northern end area as a hub location is generally unsupported by the community citing poor general access and parking, poor visibility from the road, and perceived lack of room to expand.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Reserves Act 1977 will have legislative requirements associated with Location Three.

7.2 Reserve Management Plan: Lakes Murchison Ward (2005).

7.3 Local Government Act 2002 – Section 11A.

7.4 The Resource Management Act 1991 and Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP).

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 With Council approval for the hub to be located on Council land, further engagement with our iwi partners will be undertaken as part of the initiation for the project, and it will be added to the Whakawhitiwhiti Whakaaro (portal).

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The project adopted in the Long-Term Plan 2024/34 has local significance for the Tapawera community. There is some division and concerns from some residents around fiscal responsibility.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	Original proposed site, 95 Main Road Tapawera site is cited by some residents as historically important, and they are concerned over the loss of the building.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	High	There are residents with concerns over the fiscal responsibility of the project in general. Concerns raised over the initial and ongoing running costs for the new hub.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	The facility will be a permanent facility for the Tapawera community for the next 50 years.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	N/A
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	High	The Council will end up owning a new community facility in Tapawera
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Medium	Adopted in the Long-Term Plan the build cost will be funded by Reserve Financial Contributions (RFCs) predominantly, with some ratepayer and community funding required to meet the cost. The ongoing running cost will need to be borne by Tapawera Connect, Tapawera District and Community Council and Tasman District Council.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	Areas 1 and 2 will need to mitigate risk and potential impacts from the 1% AEP modelling for each site.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Since the LTP consultation there has been ongoing communication with the key groups Tapawera District Community Council, Tapawera Connect and the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

10.2 Questions on potential hub locations at Tapawera Memorial Park have been included in the draft Lakes-Murchison Reserve Management Plan. This was publicly notified on 11 April 2025, with submissions closing on 16 June 2025 and hearings and deliberations scheduled for 3 July 2025.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 The adopted Long-Term Plan 2024/2034 has confirmed $1.8m of the project value will be funded through RFCs and rates funding from year 2 (2025/2026). The community co funding is set at $900,000 in total.

11.2 The financial implications for the Council are medium.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If the Council does not confirm the continuation of the project on Council owned land, acknowledging the opposition to the project raised in December 2024 and early 2025, the project would need to be paused.

12.2 If the project team is not able to progress the design during 2025/2026, with commitment to substantively spend the majority of the $500,000 DIA funding in 2025. There is a low risk of the funding being reclaimed by Central Government.

12.3 If a large portion of the community of 2000 is in fact not in support of the new hub, Tapawera Connect and TDCC may struggle to secure the $400,000 remaining community funding.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The Areas 1 and 2 on the Council land (Tapawera Memorial Park), are both modelled as having inundation in a 1% AEP weather event. If accepted by the Council and the building is progressed in either Area 1 or 2, the design will need to plan for the advent of climate change and ensure the current inundation risks are mitigated as far as possible.

13.2 Any new build will need to include features to increase building thermal performance, save energy and be sustainable.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 This project has been adopted in the 2024/2034 Long Term Plan. This paper updates and seeks approval from the Council on the alternative areas for the facility to be located, noting this is different from the original location proposed.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 There is some division in the community over the likely cost of the new hub ($2.68m Rates / RFCs and Community Funded) and future running costs. This needs to be acknowledged and the continuing mandate confirmed by the Council.

15.2 There are three alternative areas where the new hub facility can be located. However, due to the material change to location from the adopted Long-Term Plan and all three areas being on Council owned land, the Council needs to approve this change.

15.3 The approval to locate the new hub on any of the Areas, 1, 2 or 3 is also required to enable further site investigations and Concept/ Preliminary design stages, to commence.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Acknowledging, the public consultation for the draft Lakes-Murchison Reserve Management Plan finishes in June 2025, with deliberations in July 2025.

16.2 If the Council can provide approval (even if in principle) prior to July 2025 deliberations for the Hub to be located on Council land at the Tapawera Memorial Park (Including Areas 1,2 and 3), the project team can engage a designer to progress the design stages for the Hub.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.8 Lower Queen Street Bridge Upgrade - Temporary Bypass Considerations

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Jack Cerfontaine, Project Manager; Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager; Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-05-9

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to review the options of closing Lower Queen Street or installing a temporary bypass to accommodate the construction of the new Lower Queen Street bridge over Borck Creek.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 A new bridge is required on Lower Queen Street to provide additional channel capacity for Borck Creek. This will cater for both recent and future development.

2.2 At its meeting on 13 February 2025, the Council resolved to award the Lower Queen Street Bridge Capacity Upgrade project, Contract 1268, to Fulton Hogan Ltd for a final construction price not exceeding $10,100,000 plus GST. This included the construction of the new temporary bypass, with an option to decide on either the full closure or the bypass option, after a one-week full closure starting on 12 May 2025.

2.3 At the same 13 February 2025 meeting, the Council discussed the two options for Traffic Management during the construction. First option comprising the construction of a temporary bypass road, the second option comprising the closure of Lower Queen Street for the full duration of the bridge construction, approximately ten months.

2.4 Staff met with NZTA Waka Kotahi to discuss the impact of the closure of Lower Queen Street for a duration of ten months and the impact on traffic on SH60 and SH6 and, in particular, the impact on the McShane Road and State Highway 60 intersection.

2.5 If a full closure of Lower Queen Steet is chosen, Waka Kotahi outlined an expectation that the Council put risk mitigation measures in place on the intersection of McShane Road and State Highway 60. The indicative suggestion was a temporary roundabout and ongoing traffic management on State Highway 60 and specifically heavy vehicles turning from State Highway 60 into McShane Road.

2.6 The difference in cost between full closure (with temporary roundabout SH60/McShane Road) and the temporary bypass is in the range of $600,000 - $700,000, with the full closure being the cheaper option. This is lower than the previous forecast of $1.4 – $1.8 million, mainly due to the increased cost of the temporary roundabout risk mitigation measure on the intersection of McShane Road and State Highway 60.

2.7 Through various communication channels we have asked for public feedback on the two options. As at 28 April 2025, approximately 70% of the respondents support the construction of the temporary bypass, circa 28% supported the full road closure, and the remainder did not have a preference.

2.8 The feedback from the business community has been overwhelmingly in support of the temporary bypass. This is in line with the Economic Impact assessment that was done for this project. The wider economic impact of closing Lower Queen Street for the full duration of the project, far exceeds the cost saving of $600,000 – $700,000.

2.9 If the decision is made to build the temporary bypass road, there will only be need for a closure of Lower Queen Street for three short durations (24-48 hours each).

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Lower Queen Street Bridge Upgrade - Temporary Bypass Considerations report, RCN25-05-9; and

2. approves the construction of the temporary bypass to accommodate the construction of the new Lower Queen Street bridge over Borck Creek.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 At its meeting on 13 February 2025, the Council informally requested that an additional report be provided to the Council regarding the two most realistic options to deal with traffic management for the Lower Queen Street Bridge Upgrade project. The first option comprised the construction of a temporary bypass road to allow traffic to bypass the construction site while the bridge was being built. The second option comprised the closure of Lower Queen Street, between Arvida retirement village and McShane Road intersection, for the full duration of the bridge construction, approximately ten months.

4.2 A Traffic Impact Assessment and an Economic Impact Assessment report were completed to assist with decision making on the ‘full closure’ or ‘bypass’ option.

4.3 Following the Council meeting on 13 February 2025, Council staff met with NZTA Waka Kotahi to discuss the impact of the works on the State Highway network. If a full closure of Lower Queen Steet was chosen, then NZTA Waka Kotahi staff stated that they expected corresponding risk mitigation measures would be put in place on the intersection of McShane Road and State Highway 60. This would comprise a temporary roundabout and ongoing traffic management on State Highway 60, relating to additional vehicles and particularly heavy vehicles turning from the State Highway into McShane Road.

4.4 The Council could decide to not incorporate NZTA/Waka Kotahi’s expectations regarding risk mitigation measures and traffic management on SH60. NZTA/Waka Kotahi has had the upgrade of the McShane Road/SH60 intersection in its programme for many years and has not made it a priority to date. However, given the Council’s obligations regarding safe roads, it would not be prudent for it to implement actions that could adversely affect safety on alternative routes without giving serious consideration to mitigation measures.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The construction of the new bridge over Borck Creek will have an impact on commuters, businesses and emergency services whatever option is chosen to manage traffic. To one degree or other, there will be an adverse impact on journey times for commuters. Correspondingly there will be an associated adverse economic impact for the region.

5.2 The two traffic management options being considered are either to close Lower Queen Street without a temporary bypass for the full duration of the works or build the temporary bypass and essentially keep Lower Queen Street functioning. The closure without the temporary bypass has a four-month shorter timeframe and reduces costs by about $600 - $700k. The four-month shorter timeframe is because the work would involve a 6-day working week plus not having to build the temporary bypass, which would take 5-6 weeks to construct.

5.3 However, implementing the 6-day working week with the temporary bypass would result in an additional cost of circa $350,000 which has not been budgeted for.

5.4 The economic impact assessment suggested a circa $2.7m adverse economic impact on the local economy. This exceeds the cost savings that would be achieved in closing the road. However, it should be noted that different entities carry the costs of each option - the Council would fund the extra cost of the temporary bypass through both development contributions and rates, whereas the economic cost of a road closure would be carried by those operating within the local economy and directly affected by the Lower Queen Street closure.

5.5 Economic impact of the temporary bypass is significantly smaller, it is expected that the travel time increases by only 10-15 seconds mainly due to the 30 kph speed limit on the temporary bypass road.

5.6 Through various communication channels staff asked for public feedback on the two options. As at 28 April 2025, circa 70% of the respondents support the construction of the bypass road, 28% supported the full road closure and the remainder did not have a preference.

5.7 The feedback from the business community has been overwhelmingly in support of the temporary bypass option. This is in line with the Economic Impact assessment that was carried out for this project.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 The ‘temporary bypass’ option is within the budget allocated to this project as per the Council resolution at its meeting on 13 February 2025.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Proceed with the project but close Lower Queen Street for the duration of the works.	No temporary bypass required, this generates a potential cost saving of $600,000 – $700,000, a safer work environment for the contractor, and a shorter timeframe for the overall works.	Economic impact assessment shows a cost to the community of circa $2.7m compared to the option of constructing a temporary bypass. The traffic impact assessment shows that the level of service drops significantly, from level C/D to E. This would mean that we can expect a Richmond traffic gridlock during the morning and the afternoon peak hours for most days of the week. This would last for the full duration of the works (approximately ten months).
2.	Build a temporary bypass road.	All traffic, including heavy vehicles and emergency services, can use the bypass road. There will be a slight delay as the bypass has 30 kph speed limit, but there is no need to take alternative routes.	Longer total project duration, about four months longer than a full road closure.
2a.	Accelerate the construction timeframe. Build a temporary bypass and shorten the project duration i.e. working a 6-day week instead of a 5-day week.	Faster construction time of around 9 weeks.	Additional budget of circa $350,000 would need to be approved by Council. TO accommodate this extra funding would require deferring other project(s) to allow budget to be freed up in FY25/26.

7.2 Option 2, build a temporary bypass, is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 There are no legislative requirements relating to this decision.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 We have had extensive communication with iwi regarding this project.

9.2 Feedback focused on the protection of cultural and ecological values.

9.3 There has been no specific feedback relating to what option we chose for managing traffic i.e. bypass or full closure.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

10.1 Overall there is a high degree of significance associated with this decision, and a corresponding high level of engagement has been carried out.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	Given that Lower Queen Street is one of the major gateways to and from Richmond, it will have an impact on a large number of road users. The decision also impacts on property owners in the vicinity of the bridge and the business that use LQS to get to and from their destinations. The survey we have been running on Shape Tasman and the feedback we have received through various media channels, indicates the high level of interest in this project.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	In the long term, the new bridge will minimise the flooding risk. In the short term there is a social and economic impact on the community. It impacts on travel times and a full closure would have a significant economic impact on our community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	This project was indicated in the Long Term Plan and this proposal allows for the bridge construction to commence as early as is reasonably practical. In case a decision would be made to close the road for the full duration, the impact on our local economy would be significant and would be felt for a time exceeding the duration of the closure.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No	This decision does not relate to the change of ownership of a strategic asset
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	If the Council approves the construction of the temporary bypass, then there is no significant change to the Level of Service provided.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	The proposal to build the temporary bypass road falls within the budget as agreed by the Council on 13 February 2025.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No	This proposal is not about adding or removing scope from the programme of works relating to Borck Creek. The proposal is about how we deal with traffic management during the construction of the new bridge over Borck Creek.

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Regarding this decision, we have communicated through various social media, we have door knocked local businesses, we have met with several businesses in person, we emailed through a projects team site and have received and responded to Service Requests.

11.2 Staff have set up a Project page on Shape Tasman where we have been running a survey re bypass or full closure for several weeks.

11.3 During the first week of May staff put a full-page advertisement in the Waimea Weekly dedicated to this project.

11.4 There have been several articles in the Nelson Mail and the Waimea Weekly.

11.5 Staff placed a Myth Busters article on our social media.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Given the interest our community has shown in this project, there will always be people that will not be happy with whatever the Council decides, either temporary bypass or full closure.

12.2 A decision to go for the full closure, would have a significant economic impact on our local community. This would likely be a medium to high reputational risk.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The proposal requiring a decision in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024.

13.2 This proposal will not impact greenhouse gas emissions, they will stay the same and there will be no impact on the Council’s and/or Tasman District’s carbon footprint.

13.3 The performance of this project will be impacted by a changing climate, but this has been included in the engineering design.

13.4 This proposal aligns with the Council’s and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 Although the construction of a temporary bypass does not conflict with any of the Council’s policies or strategic plans it allows the Council to complete the Lower Queen Street Bridge and thereby increasing stormwater capacity through to the Waimea Estuary.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Considering the economic impact a full closure of Lower Queen Street for the duration of the new bridge construction, would have on our local economy, and the feedback we have received from both our residents and business community, staff recommend constructing the temporary bypass to accommodate the traffic on Lower Queen Street during the construction of the new bridge over Borck Creek.

15.2 Accepting the recommendation allows staff to focus on the timely start of the bridge construction and associated works.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the Council approves the staff recommendation, staff will advise the contractor of this decision. No contract amendment is required.

16.2 Following this, communication will go out through our media channels regarding the decision to proceed with a bypass and the timing for this.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.	1268- Economic Impact Assessment	330
2.⇩	1268 - Traffic Impact Assessment	75
3.⇩	Summary survey results	87

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.9 Amendments to Delegations Register

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Lakan Beech, Legal Advisor; Leith Townshend, General Counsel
Report Authorisers:	Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-05-10

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To amend and seek new statutory delegations in the Tasman District Council Delegations Register identified as part of the review of delegations in preparation for moving to LocoDelegations, which is an all-digital delegations register designed specifically for local government.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The report requests approval of amendments and new delegations under the following Acts, regulations and bylaws that contain powers which are appended with tracked changes in Attachment 1.

2.2.1. Camping Grounds Regulations 1985

2.2.2. Dog Control 1996

2.2.3. Food Act 2014

2.2.4. Freedom Camping Act 2011

2.2.5. Gambling Act 2003 and associated regulations

2.2.6. Health Act 1956

2.2.7. Health (Hairdressers) Regulations 1980

2.2.8. Health (Registration of Premises) Regulation 1966

2.2.9. Housing Improvement Regulations 1947

2.2.10. Impounding Act 1955

2.2.11. Local Government (Rating) Act 2002

2.2.12. Maritime Transport Act 1994

2.2.13. Navigation Safety Bylaw 2024

2.2.14. Public Water Supply Bylaw 2016

2.2.15. Reserves Act 1977

2.2.16. Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

2.2.17. Waste Minimisation Act 2008

2.2.18. Water Services Act 2021.

2.2 Certain legislation requires that only the Council can delegate its powers and functions, and this applies to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. Any changes, or additions, to delegations under this statute must be made by the Council.

2.3 The Legal team has been undertaking a review of the Council’s Delegations Register, with a particular focus on the Council’s statutory delegations in Part Four, in preparation for moving to LocoDelegations.

2.4 The Delegations Register will be updated with any changes approved by the Council.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council:

1. receives the Amendments to Delegations Register Report, RCN25-05-10; and

2. approves the proposed additions and changes to delegations as set out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, being an extract from the Council’s Delegation Register with additions and changes to Part Four – Statutory Delegations; and

3. notes that the Delegations Register will be updated to reflect approved changes.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Delegations are recorded against position titles, which necessitates review when restructures occur to ensure that each role retains or gains the delegations needed.

4.2 Certain legislation requires that only the Council can delegate its powers and functions, and this applies to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA).

4.3 Restructure and changes to position titles in the Water and Wastes and Regulatory teams team mean that there are new roles and position titles within the resulting teams that require approval for delegations from the Council.

4.4 In addition, a comprehensive review of the Delegations Register has commenced in preparation for Tasman District Council moving to a new online and searchable delegations register (LocoDelegations).

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Reserves Act 1977

5.1 The Reserves Act 1977 provides that the Council, as an administering body, may exercise certain powers over reserves with the prior consent of the Minister of Conservation. In 2013, the Minister of Conservation delegated certain Ministerial powers to the Council.

5.2 The administering body’s powers are a decision-making function, whereby the merits of the proposal are considered. The Minister’s consenting power is not a decision-making power but a supervisory role in ensuring that the administering body’s decision complies with Reserves Act 1977 requirements.

5.3 The current delegations register delegates provisions that contain both delegated Ministerial powers and administering body powers to the Chief Executive Officer and staff in the Community Infrastructure Group without separating out the powers of the Minister and administering body. As the Minister’s consenting power is a review power, it is not appropriate that it is delegated to the same staff who exercise the administering body’s powers.

5.4 The amended delegations propose to remove delegations of Ministerial consenting powers to staff and delegate these instead to either:

a. the Strategy and Policy Committee for powers relating to reserve management planning and classification; or

b. the Environment and Regulatory Committee for operational reserve matters.

5.5 Staff will retain delegated administering body powers unless there are public notice requirements that require the decision to be made at the Council or Committee level. Some existing delegations to committees will be removed where a full resolution of the Council is required for decisions due to public notice requirements.

5.6 This report seeks the following new delegations under the Reserves Act:

a. Section 23 – this delegation will enable the Strategy and Policy Committee to prohibit access to whole or any part of a reserve.

b. Section 26A – this delegation will enable staff to apply for a record of title where the Minister of Conservation has vested land in the Council as a reserve by gazette. Obtaining a record of title is for evidentiary purposes only as the vesting takes place upon the Minister declaring the land to be a reserve by Gazette notice, not upon the issuing of a record of title.

c. Section 42(2) and (3) – this delegation will enable Council staff to approve cutting and removing trees and undertake other routine flora and fauna maintenance on reserves.

d. Section 45 – this delegation will enable staff to erect or authorise erection of structures described above on recreation or scenic reserves. The Strategy and Policy Committee would have a supervisory role over staff’s decisions as the delegate of the Minister’s consenting powers.

e. Section 54 (for purposes that require public notification under the Reserves Act) - this delegation will enable the Environment and Regulatory Committee to grant a lease or licence in reserve land and structures on reserve land for purposes that require public notification, which include baths, camping grounds, parking, mooring and sports and recreation facilities.

f. Section 54 (for purposes that do not require public notification under the Reserves Act) - this delegation will enable staff to grant a lease or licence in a recreation reserve for purposes of a trade, business, or occupation. The Environment and Regulatory Committee will have a supervisory role over staff decisions as the delegate of the Minister’s consenting powers.

g. Section 61 – this delegation will enable the Environment and Regulatory Committee to grant leases over local purposes reserves for community buildings, playcentre, kindergartens, farming, grazing, cultivation or other cropping purposes where the lease would require public notification under the Local Government Act 2002 due to being of medium to high significance. Staff will retain the delegation to grant leases and licences over local purpose reserves under this section where those leases or licences would be of low significance.

h. Section 72 – this delegation will enable staff to enter an agreement or lease for farming or grazing of a local purpose or recreational reserve. The Environment and Regulatory Committee will have a supervisory role over staff decisions as the delegate of the Minister’s consenting powers.

i. Section 95(5) - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Community Infrastructure to authorise staff to dispose of structures erected on Council reserve land without consent.

j. Section 113 - this delegation will enable staff to develop and determine templates or forms for a licence and any conditions of a licence granted by the Council.

k. Section 114 - this delegation will enable staff to vary terms and conditions of a lease or licence over a reserve.

l. Section 115 – this delegation will enable staff to consent to a transfer, sublease or mortgage of a lease or licence granted by Council over a reserve

Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985, Dog Control Act 1996, Food Act 2014, Freedom Camping Act 2011, Gambling Act 2003 and associated regulations, Health Act 1956, Health (Hairdressers) Regulations 1980, Health (Registration of Premises) Regulation 1966, Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, Impounding Act 1955, Maritime Transport Act 1994, Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

5.7 These Acts contain powers that are exercised by staff in the Environmental Assurance group. The proposed changes reflect changes to staff position titles and new delegations added as part of the review of Statutory Delegations within the LocoDelegations project, to ensure robustness of delegations to staff.

5.8 In late 2023, the Regulatory team was restructured resulting in the Harbourmaster’s reporting line changing from the Regulatory Manager to the Group Manager, Environmental Assurance. The positions of Dog Ranger and Parking Warden were amalgamated and renamed Regulatory Services Enforcement Officers.

5.9 The following are new delegations under the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985:

a. Regulation 15 – this delegation will enable staff to enforce Camping-Ground Regulations and inspect camping grounds and relocatable homes.

5.10 The following are new delegations under the Dog Control Act 1996:

a. Section 33EB - this delegation will enable staff to require neutering of a menacing dog.

b. Section 33ED - this delegation will enable staff to classify a dog as dangerous or menacing.

c. Section 34 – this delegation will enable staff to determine whether to include additional information in the dog register.

d. Section 67 - this delegation will enable staff to maintain and operate pound facilities and enter agreements.

e. Section 70 -– this delegation will enable staff to retain, return and dispose of a dog removed for barking.

5.11 The following are new delegations under the Food Act 2014:

a. Section 61A - this delegation will enable staff to require an operator to amend a food control plan that is not based on an official template if that plan cannot be readily understood by the Council or an operator.

b. Section 338 - this delegation will enable staff to give effect to a court order against a person who has breached the Food Act 2014 and recover any costs and expenses incurred in complying with that court order with the court’s consent.

5.12 The following are new delegations under the Health Act 1956

a. Section 53C - this delegation will enable staff to make advances to owners to undertake cleaning or repairs to comply with a Health Act notice.

b. Section 81 - this delegation will enable staff to authorise an environmental health officer to cleanse and disinfect premises to limit, eradicate or prevent the spread of an infectious disease.

c. Section 86 – this delegation will enable staff to bury bodies where a person has died in such a state as to be dangerous to health and recover the costs of that burial.

d. Section 128 – this delegation will enable staff to authorise an officer of health, health protection officer or other person to enter a building, land, ship or other premises to carry out works required under the Health Act 1956.

5.13 The following are new delegations under the Health (Hairdressers) Regulations 1980:

a. Regulation 3 – this delegation will enable staff to issue certificates of registration for hairdresser shops.

5.14 The following are new delegations under the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulation 1966:

a. Regulation 4 – this delegation will enable staff to require particular information to be included in an application for registration.

5.15 The following are new delegations under the Impounding Act 1955:

a. Section 10 - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to remove or suspend a pound keeper or ranger.

b. Section 12 - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to direct pounds to be kept clean and confine stock infected with a contagious disease in separate enclosures.

c. Section 32 - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to declare any fenced paddock to be a temporary pound with the occupier’s consent and appoint a keeper.

d. Section 38 - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to issue a public notice calling the owner of wild stock trespassing on land to remove their stock. If not removed, those staff members may authorise the sale of the stock by public auction.

e. Section 42 - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to authorise pound keepers or rangers to destroy wild stock straying on roads and dispose of carcasses of any destroyed stock.

f. Section 50 - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to authorise a pound keeper or other person to act as an auctioneer for an auction of impounded stock.

g. Section 52 - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to arrange the destruction of an animal certified by a justice, constable, inspector of stock or registered veterinarian to be worthless or suffering due to sickness or injury.

h. Section 53 - this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to dispose of unsold stock that has been unsuccessfully offered for sale.

5.16 The following are new delegations under the Maritime Transport Act 1994:

a. Section 200A – this delegation will enable the Group Manager, Environmental Assurance and Harbourmaster to apply to the Minister of Transport to declare a major maritime event or occasion. This declaration enables enforcement officers to exercise the powers of a Harbourmaster and other special enforcement powers specified in section 200B to maintain order and safety in a major maritime event or occasion.

b. Section 200B – this delegation will enable the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager, Environmental Assurance to appoint enforcement officers for a major maritime event or occasion.

Navigation Safety Bylaw 2024

5.17 One new delegation is sought under the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2024:

a. Clause 49.3 – this delegation will enable the Environment and Regulatory Committee, on the recommendation of the Harbourmaster, to determine requests to be exempted from requirements of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2024. These requests are often for technical reasons, such as an individual vessel being unable to meet the requirement to use the automatic identification system (AIS) due to a lack of AIS coverage in their area. This delegation will save the Council time and increase efficiency in processing exemption requests.

Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA)

5.18 Under the current delegations register, LGRA powers are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Finance Group managers and Water and Wastes staff to administer rate remission and postponement policies, including the Policy on Remission of Excess Metered Water Rates.

5.19 In practice, the Water and Wastes team apply water rate remission policies to determine ratepayer applications to remit or postpone water rates, but do not administer this policy. The Finance Group is responsible for administering all rate remission and postponement policies. The proposed changes seek to change the water rate remission delegations to better reflect operational practices by:

a. removing delegations to staff in the Water and Waste team to administer rate remission policies; and

b. delegating the power to determine ratepayer applications made under the Policy on Remission of Excess Metered Water Rates to the Community Infrastructure Group Manager and Water and Wastes staff.

Public Water Supply Bylaw 2016

5.20 In the Council’s current delegations register, Public Water Supply Bylaw 2016 delegations are broadly recorded in the ‘Management’ part of the Delegations Register. However, these delegations are statutory because they are contained in the Bylaw and should be moved to the Statutory part of the delegations register.

5.21 Two new delegations are sought under the Public Water Supply Bylaw 2016:

a. Clause 29(8) – this delegation will enable a Standing Committee to issue a notice restricting or prohibiting where a Standing Committee meeting falls before a Council meeting. This will allow for efficiency and quicker processing of public water restriction notices.

b. Clause 29(9) – this delegation will enable the Group Manager, Community Infrastructure to issue a notice restricting or prohibiting the use of public water supply for phases A to D of the Water Restrictions Protocol in the Bylaw, and to amend or revoke such notice.

Waste Minimisation Act 2008

5.22 The report requests two new delegations to the Chief Executive Officer:

a. Section 76 – this will enable the Chief Executive Officer to appoint enforcement officers.

b. Section 85 – this will enable the Chief Executive Officer to authorise staff to dispose of property seized and impounded under the Act has not been returned to its owner within six months, to enable quicker processing and save Council meeting time.

Water Services Act 2021

5.23 The report requests the following new delegations to staff under Water Services Act 2021:

a) Subpart 1 - ensure compliance with the duties of a drinking water supplier.

b) Section 35 – this delegation will enable staff to notify Taumata Arowai of a notifiable risk or hazard.

c) Section 35A – this delegation will enable staff to respond to a notice of domestic self-supply about contamination, make assessments and take any steps.

d) Section 43 – this delegation will enable staff to prepare and implement a source water risk management plan (as a drinking water supplier) and contribute to development of plan (as a local authority).

e) Section 56 – this delegation will enable staff to apply for renewal as a drinking water supply and notify Taumata Arowai of any changes to information provided at time of registration.

f) Section 89 – this delegation will enable staff to apply to Taumata Arowai for an internal review of a decision.

g) Sections 93, 95 and 96 – these delegations will enable staff to appeal through the courts against a Taumata Arowai decision on compensation under section 64(5), an internal review under section 90 or a compliance order under section 120.

h) Section 139 - this delegation will enable staff to prepare and implement a risk management plan for the wastewater network and provide the draft and final risk management plan to Taumata Arowai.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the proposed changes to the Delegations Register	Enables efficiency in delivering services. Ensures legislative compliance through committees and staff having the correct delegations for their roles, thereby reducing risk for the Council.	No disadvantages to the proposed changes which are required by legislation.
2.	Do not approve the proposed changes to the Delegations Register or only approve in part.	No advantages to not approving the proposed changes which are required by legislation.	Impacts on efficiency in delivering services. Reduces legislative compliance and creates risk for the Council.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā Ture

7.1 The LGRA restricts the sub-delegation of powers. Delegated authority needs to come directly from the Council.

7.2 Councils operate under a plethora of legislation daily. Many statutes, particularly older ones, give powers and functions to the Council and do not provide for direct delegations to staff. This means councils must work through each Act (and their bylaws, policies etc.) and decide on levels of delegated authority.

7.3 The development of a sector specific tool such as LocoDelegations (complete with legal review) is accordingly very welcome and anticipated to improve the level of compliance and robustness of delegations in councils. It will also assist the Council in remaining abreast of legislative changes which could impact on delegations.

7.4 There are three consequential amendments to the ‘Management’ part of the Delegations Register resulting from the statutory delegation amendments. These are recorded in Attachment 1.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Due to delegations being operational by nature, no engagement has been undertaken with iwi.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The proposed changes to the Delegations Register are considered of low significance and no community engagement and consultation has been required.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Generally, delegations are a matter for the Council to ensure that the Council can operate as efficiently as possible.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Staff may be appointed and/or authorised as enforcement officers who will interact with members of the public on a daily basis in relation to many functions of the Council so it is important that staff hold appropriate delegations to make decisions which can have a positive or not so positive impact on those customers.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	Ensuring delegations are in place helps to improve services for customers and at the same time, reduce risk to the Council.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	Some delegations to staff may relate to responsibilities for the management and maintenance of the Council’s assets.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	NA	No substantial change anticipated.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	NA
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	NA
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	NA
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	NA
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	Some delegations to staff of Water Services Act 2021 responsibilities and powers.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Managers have been involved in proposing changes to the Delegations Register and to delegations to their staff and will be advised if these are approved.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 There are no financial implications for the Council approving the proposed changes to the Delegations Register.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If the Council does not delegate to staff, every decision would require a decision of the Council, which would be inefficient.

12.2 It is important for staff to hold delegated authority from the Council or the Chief Executive Officer to enable them to carry out their powers, duties, and functions, otherwise risk can be created for the Council if unauthorised decisions are challenged.

13. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

13.1 Ensuring correct delegations are in place for decision making and other powers and functions is essential. It is recommended that the proposed changes and amendments to the Delegations Register be approved by the Council.

14. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

14.1 The Delegations Register will be updated with the proposed changes once approved by the Council.

14.2 Staff will continue to review the delegations register in preparation for moving to LocoDelegations. Further changes to the Delegations Register will be brought to the Council in the coming months as staff work towards implementation of LocoDelegations.

15. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Proposed Amendments to Delegation Register

102

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.10 Section 17A Service Delivery Review - Community Facilities

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-05-11

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 This report has been prepared to enable the Council to meet its obligations under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 to review the cost-effectiveness of current service delivery arrangements in meeting the needs of communities within its district for Community Facilities.

1.2 The categories of Community Facilities included in the review are:

1.2.1 Community Centres

1.2.2 Halls

1.2.3 Miscellaneous Community Buildings

1.2.4 Multi Use Community Recreation Centres

1.2.5 Richmond Aquatic Centre

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council is required to carry out service delivery reviews for the different activities it undertakes, this report reviews Community Facilities including Community Centres, Halls, Miscellaneous Buildings, Multi-Use Recreation Centres and the Richmond Aquatic Centre.

2.2 Governance and funding of these facilities is currently provided by the Council. Delivery is slightly different for each facility category; Halls have triennially elected community representatives on a committee supported by Council staff. The Miscellaneous Community Buildings are managed by Hall Committees or staff. Most of the Multi-Use Community Recreation Centres are managed and operated under management agreements with a Community Trust. The Richmond Aquatic Centre is managed and operated under a contract with a private entity. While there is variety of management and operating models, they match the size, scale and location of the facility. Community involvement and engagement is high, and facilities are considered cost effective.

2.3 Some of the existing management contracts/agreements need to be improved with better performance measures and accountability and alignment of expiry dates. The contract for the Richmond Aquatic Centre expires this year. Existing contracts/agreements expire in 2025, with the exception of the Golden Bay Recreation Park which expires in 2026, this board has agreed to an early termination to align the term of their agreement with the other centres.

2.4 The report recommends that the current approach for governance, funding and delivery of the Community Facilities activity remains unchanged. This approach is Council governance and funding with delivery by a combination of community groups and in the case of Richmond Aquatic Centre a contract with a private entity. Management support by Council staff would continue at a similar level to that currently provided.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Section 17A Service Delivery Review - Community Facilities report RCN25-05-10; and

2. approves that, following the section 17A review of Community Facilities as contained in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, that the governance, funding and delivery of the Community Facilities activity remains unchanged; and

3. notes that the delivery of the Community Facilities activity will continue to be reported to the Operations Committee.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to carry out service delivery reviews for the different activities that it undertakes. Reviews are required when there is a significant change to levels of service; a contract for delivery of the service is due to expire within two years; no service delivery review under s17A has been undertaken within six years.

4.2 Service delivery reviews are required to, “review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions”, consider options for the governance, funding, and delivery. In this review various types of community facilities are considered. This includes options where:

4.2.1 Responsibility for governance, funding and delivery is exercised by the local authority.

4.2.2 Responsibility for governance and funding is exercised by the local authority and delivery is by:

a) a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) of the local authority; or

b) a CCO in which the local authority is one of several shareholders: or

c) another local authority; or

d) another person or agency.

4.2.3 Responsibility for governance and funding is delegated to a joint committee or other shared governance arrangement and responsibility for delivery is by an entity or person as listed in paragraphs 4.2.4 a) – d) above.

4.3 A local authority is not required to undertake a review:

4.3.1 to the extent that the delivery of that infrastructure, service, or regulatory function is governed by legislation, contract, or other binding agreement such that it cannot reasonably be altered within the following two years.

4.3.2 if it is satisfied that the potential benefits of undertaking a review do not justify the cost of undertaking the review.

4.4 The Tasman 10-Year Plan 2024-2034 includes a group of activities in the Community Development section. These are Parks & Reserves, Community Facilities and Community Partnerships. This service delivery review encompasses the Community Facilities Activity but excludes the Libraries, Housing for Older Adults, Museums and Leased Community Buildings.

4.5 The types of Community Facilities included in this review are:

4.5.1 Community Centres

4.5.2 Halls

4.5.3 Miscellaneous Community Buildings

4.5.4 Multi-Use Community Recreation Centres

4.5.5 Richmond Aquatic Centre

4.6 This service delivery review was completed by a former manager for this activity area, supported by the current manager, providing the knowledge and an understanding of how these facilities are currently managed. The methodology for the review is based on guidelines provided by the Society of Local Government Managers (now Taituarā) and internal Council guidance for service delivery reviews.

4.7 The review is undertaken in several stages,

4.7.1 The first stage considers the rationale for service provision, the present arrangements for governance, funding and delivery, previous reviews, the performance of the activities and overall cost of each activity both operational and capital.

4.7.2 The second stage evaluates and makes a recommendation as to whether a review is required.

4.7.3 The third stage considers and analyses the options for governance, funding and delivery for those activities recommended for review. A final recommendation is then made for the future governance funding and delivery.

4.8 The Section 17A review for the Community Facilities outlined in Section 4.5 of this report is included as Attachment 1.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The Council currently provides a range of community facilities across the District that provide places and spaces for community recreation, social activities and the arts.

5.2 Governance and funding of these facilities is currently provided by the Council and is supported by the Mayor and Councillors, Community Board Members and in the case of Halls and Community Centres triennially elected community representatives on facility management committees.

5.3 The management committees activate the places and provide operational support in management and co-ordination of maintenance. Council staff support these groups in the management, building maintenance and capital renewals.

5.4 The Miscellaneous Community Buildings are managed by Hall Committees or staff.

5.5 Most of the Multi-Use Community Recreation Centres are managed and operated under management agreements with a Community Trust, a service level agreement is in place to ensure agreed community outcomes are achieved.

5.6 The Richmond Aquatic Centre is managed and operated under a contract with a private entity.

5.7 While there are a variety of management and operating models in place, they have proved to be appropriate to the size, scale and location of the facility. They have a high level of community involvement and engagement so are considered cost effective, efficient and community focussed.

5.8 The facilities are dispersed across the District and particularly in the case of community halls which serve small or rural communities, community led and operated amenities, for the community by the community based on local needs are a great solution.

5.9 There is a need to modify the Richmond Town Hall and the five Multi-Use Community Recreation Centre agreements to improve the performance measures and accountabilities, but the governance and service delivery models are considered appropriate and fit for purpose.

5.10 A third stage review of options for the Richmond Aquatic Centre was undertaken to enable consideration of the full range of options for governance, funding and delivery
(Attachment 1). This showed that the current model of governance and funding by the Council, with delivery by a private entity was the most appropriate. This option is also the status quo and has been in place since the facility opened around 2007. The current contract expires on 30 November 2025 so there is a need to get a procurement process underway as soon as possible and a programme is in place to achieve this.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 The total operating and capital costs for the Community Facilities included in the review are included in the review document in Attachment 1.

6.2 They include the actual costs for the past three years and the inflation adjusted budgeted costs for the next 10-years as included in the Tasman 10-Year Plan 2024-2034. Similar tables of operating and capital costs have also been provided for each of the five key facility groups.

6.3 The operating costs (Opex) include wages and related expenses, maintenance, general operating costs, professional fees, overheads, loan interest and depreciation. Some of the overhead costs are held at an activity level so these have been apportioned to each of the key facility groups.

6.4 In the case of Community Recreation Centres and the Richmond Aquatic Centre the cost included is the direct cost to the Council as the revenue is retained by the contractor and is used to offset their costs with a subsidy paid by the Council.

6.5 The review proposes a continuance of the status quo with similar levels of service so no significant changes in cost are anticipated.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Governance and funding of Community Facilities by the Council. Delivery by community organisations or in the case of Richmond Aquatic Centre, a private entity. Management support by Council staff (status quo).	Mix of Council, community and private entities provides high level of community involvement in delivery. Works well in a large geographic area with several dispersed settlements. Mixed funding by users and from rates.	Relies on high level of community involvement & engagement.
2.	Governance and funding by the Council. Full in-house delivery.	No real advantage	Requires increased Council staffing. Less efficient delivery across the large District. Less involvement and engagement with community. Cost likely to be higher.
3.	Governance and funding by the Council. Delivery by a CCO or another council	No real advantage	Not within or in similar area of interest to an existing CCO and other councils unlikely to be interested in delivery.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The legislative requirements relating to service delivery reviews are outlined in Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002. Key aspects of these requirements have been included in the background section of this report. This review follows external guidance for service delivery reviews and is also consistent with the approach taken in earlier reviews.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 No specific iwi engagement in relation to the section 17A reviews has been undertaken.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

10.1 The overall performance of Community Facilities is of high significance to the community, However the subject of the service delivery review which is focused on who exercises the responsibility for governance, funding and delivery is probably of medium significance to the wider community.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low-Medium	The recommended approach is continuance with the status quo for governance, funding and delivery which is consistent with the approach outlined in the Tasman 10-year plan 2024-2034.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Any wellbeing impacts are unlikely to be changed by adopting the recommended approach.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The facilities included in this review do not fit within the criteria of a strategic asset in Schedule 1 of the Significance and Engagement Policy.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	Existing levels of service will continue unchanged.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	There are no significant increases/decreases in cost likely as service levels are unchanged.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/a
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the delivery on any Council group of activities?	Medium	A private sector contract is proposed for the management and operation of the Richmond Aquatic Centre, this reflects the status quo as a contract for this facility has been in place since 2007.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/a
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	N/a

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 No communication plan is proposed in relation to this decision as the recommended approach is consistent with that outlined in the Tasman 10-year plan 2024-2034.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 In essence, this proposal reflects the status quo so the risks associated with this proposal are low.

12.2 There is a low risk associated with a new contract for the management and operation of the Richmond Aquatic Centre. Several other councils contract the management of their aquatic facilities. There are 2-3 larger companies nationwide who offer services in facility management and the market is competitive.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 This report is of an administrative nature therefore climate change has not been considered.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 A policy for Section 17A reviews is currently being developed and is scheduled to be presented for consideration by the Council at its meeting on 8 May 2025.

14.2 Currently there are no delegations for service delivery reviews and the responsibility for their consideration sits with the Council.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 A section 17A review has been completed for most of the Community Facilities. The recommended approach is to continue the existing approach of Council governance and funding with delivery by a combination of community groups and in the case of Richmond Aquatic Centre a contract with a private entity. Management support would continue at a similar level to that currently provided.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 On adoption of this report staff will prepare modified agreements and contracts with the various delivery entities. The programme for this is:

16.1.1 Updated agreements in place for the Multi-Use Community Recreation Centres by 30 June 2025.

16.1.2 Procurement process for the Richmond Aquatic Centre completed with new contract commencing 1 December 2025.

16.1.3 Electoral processes for community board and council representatives on hall committees by 31 January 2026 and for election of hall committees completed by 31 March 2026.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

s17A Review Tasman District Council Community Facilities

130

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.11 2025 Tasman District Council Election - Order of Candidate Names on Voting Documents and Electoral System for 2028 Election

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Elaine Stephenson, Governance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-05-12

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To decide on the order of candidate surnames on voting documents for the Tasman District Council Local Government triennial election 2025.

1.2 To recommend that the decision on whether to change the electoral system for the 2028 triennial election be made by the incoming Council for the 2025 – 2028 triennium.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The 2025 Local Government triennial elections take place this year, with Election Day on Saturday, 11 October 2025.

Order of Candidate Names on Voting Documents

2.2 Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 allows for councils to determine the order of names on voting documents.

2.3 For the 2022 Tasman District Council triennial election, the Tasman District Council agreed on pseudo-random order for candidate surnames on voting documents (resolution CN22-04-4).

2.4 The Council can decide upon one of the following three options for the 2025 triennial election:

2.4.1 Alphabetical order of candidate surname; or

2.4.2 Pseudo-random order – i.e., the order of the surnames of the candidates is determined randomly and all voting documents use that order; or

2.4.3 Random Order – i.e., the order of the surnames of the candidates is determined randomly and shown in a different order on voting documents.

2.5 If there is no applicable Council resolution approving another arrangement prior to 1 August 2025, the candidates’ names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

Electoral System

2.6 The 2025 Tasman District Council triennial election will be conducted using the First-Past-the-Post (FPP) electoral system, where the candidate with the most votes wins.

2.7 The other electoral system option is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, where, rather than simply pick their preferred candidate, voters are able to rank candidates in order of preference.

2.8 Section 27 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 states that a decision to change electoral systems must be made not later than 12 September in the year that is two years before (2026) the year in which the next triennial election is to be held (2028).

2.9 Staff recommend that the decision regarding the electoral system for the 2028 triennial election be made by the incoming Council for the 2025 – 2028 triennium.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the 2025 Tasman District Council Election - Order of Candidate Names on Voting Documents and Electoral System for 2028 Election report RCN25-05-12; and

2. agrees that pursuant to Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, the names of candidates on the voting documents in the Tasman District Council 2025 triennial elections, and for any subsequent by-elections, for Mayor, Councillors and Community Board members of the Tasman District Council are arranged in:

The Council to resolve one of the following, either:

(a) alphabetical order of surname; or

(b) pseudo-random order of surname; or

(c) random order of surname; and

3. agrees that a decision on the electoral system for the 2028 Tasman District Council triennial election should be made by the incoming Council for the 2025 – 2028 triennium.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The 2025 Tasman District Council triennial election will be conducted this year, with Election Day being Saturday, 11 October 2025.

Decision on Order of Surnames on Voting Document

4.2 Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 allows the Council to determine whether the names on voting documents are to be arranged in:

1. alphabetical order of candidate surname

2. pseudo-random order – one randomised order for all voting documents

3. random order – all voting documents have a different random order.

4.3 It should be noted that:

4.3.1 candidate names will appear in alphabetical order in the candidate profile book, no matter what order the candidates are listed in voting documents

4.3.2 in the absence of a Council resolution prior to 1 August 2025, approving another option, the candidates’ names will be shown on voting documents in alphabetical order of surname by default

4.3.3 there should be no additional cost to voting documents and vote processing for any of the options

4.3.4 pseudo-random order was used for the 2022 Tasman District Council election voting documents, but prior to that, alphabetical order was used.

Decision on Electoral System

4.4 The 2025 Tasman District Council triennial election will be conducted using the First-Past-the-Post (FPP) electoral system, where the candidate with the most votes wins.

4.5 The other electoral system option is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, where, rather than simply pick their preferred candidate, voters are able to rank candidates in order of preference.

4.6 Section 27 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 states that a decision to change electoral systems must be made not later than 12 September in the year that is two years before (2026) the year in which the next triennial election is to be held (2028).

4.7 Staff recommend that a decision on the 2028 triennial electoral system be made by the incoming Council for the 2025 – 2028 triennium.

5. Options / Kōwhiringa

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Alphabetical order of candidate surnames	This is the simplest method for the elector.	Over past years it has been argued that alphabetical order of candidate names tends to favour those candidates with surnames earlier in the alphabet (ballot-order effect). There could be a possible perception of bias.
2.	Pseudo-random order of candidate surnames	Reduces the chance of ballot-order effect, order of names would be the same on all documents.	Slight potential for voter confusion as specific candidate names are less easily found.
3.	Random order of candidate surnames	Fairest to all candidates as it removes any chance of ballot-order effect.	Increased potential for voter confusion, particularly when comparing voting documents.

5.2 Staff are not recommending a preferred option; the decision sits with Council.

6. Legal / Ngā ture

6.1 The Council has decision-making powers on these matters in accordance with Local Electoral Regulations 2001 and the Local Electoral Act 2001.

7. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

7.1 No engagement has taken place, this is a decision for the Council and engagement is not required.

8. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

8.1 The decision is of low significance to most residents but is of moderate significance to potential candidates. This is a decision for the Council to make and public consultation or engagement is not required.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The order of surname on voting documents may be of significance to candidates, but not to the public in general
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The opportunity to decide on the order of candidates’ surnames on voting documents will be provided again prior to the 2028 triennial elections.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	n/a
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	n/a
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	n/a
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	n/a
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	n/a
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	n/a
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	n/a
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	n/a

9. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

9.1 The candidate information booklet will advise of the agreed order of candidates’ names on voting documents.

9.2 Council’s electoral services provider, Election Services will be informed of this decision for the Tasman District Council voting papers.

10. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

10.1 There should be no additional voting document costs relating to the order of candidate names.

11. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

11.1 This is considered a low-risk decision, all options are valid and provided for in legislation.

12. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

12.1 Not applicable.

13. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

13.1 The Council’s decision regarding the order of candidate names on 2025 voting documents will be forwarded to the Council’s external election services provider, Election Services.

14. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.12 Local Government Act 2002 - Section 17A Review Policy

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Amy Clarke, Risk & Assurance Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Deidre Hemera, Assurance and Improvement Manager; Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-05-13

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To seek approval for an s17A Review Policy to ensure that LGA s17A reviews are undertaken in an efficient manner where mandated, and are adequately monitored and are in accordance with the legislation.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Local Government Act 2002 Section 17A reviews assess the cost-effectiveness of service delivery arrangements and are a statutory requirement under the Act.

2.2 These reviews provide a formal, structured mechanism with a defined scope. However, they do not replace the ongoing responsibility of managers to ensure services are well-managed, efficient, and effective at all times.

2.3 The proposed policy will establish a consistent, Council-wide approach to conducting the required Section 17A reviews. It will strengthen reporting, confirm legislative compliance, and ensure that reviews are carried out in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

2.4 Delegations are sought to implement the policy, enabling Group Managers and the Chief Executive Officer to approve reviews and exemptions within their respective financial delegations.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Local Government Act 2002 - Section 17A Review Policy Report,
RCN25-05-13; and

2. approves the Section 17A Policy (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

3. delegates to the Chief Executive Officer and the Council’s Group Managers the authority to approve section 17A reviews and exemptions when the whole-of-life contract value or the total annual cost of the service or function (whichever is greater) is less than their financial delegation; and

4. delegates to the Council’s Standing Committees authority to approve section 17A reviews and exemptions where the whole-of-life contract value or the total annual cost of the service or function (whichever is greater) exceeds the Chief Executive Officer or Group Manager’s financial delegations.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Under Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), councils are required to regularly review the cost-effectiveness of their service delivery arrangements. These reviews help ensure that governance, funding, and service delivery methods deliver value for money while meeting the needs of the community.

4.2 Section 17A reviews must be carried out:

· At least every six years for significant activities;

· When a significant change to service delivery is proposed; or

· When a contract or funding agreement is due to expire within two years.

4.3 While Section 17A mandates these reviews, there is no legislative requirement for councils to have a formal policy setting out how and when they should be undertaken. Without a structured framework, reviews may be approached inconsistently, leading to inefficiencies, gaps in compliance, and unnecessary costs.

4.4 Introducing a Section 17A Review Policy will provide a clear, structured approach to meeting legislative requirements while ensuring that reviews are proportionate, strategically focused, and transparent.

4.5 It is important to note that the requirement to undertake Section 17A reviews does not remove or replace the ongoing responsibility of managers to ensure that services are well-managed, efficient, and effective at all times.

4.6 Managers remain fully accountable for continuous improvement, financial stewardship, and operational effectiveness across their areas of responsibility, regardless of whether a formal Section 17A review has been triggered. Good management, regular monitoring, and proactive service improvement are expected as part of normal business operations.

4.7 Section 17A reviews are an additional formal mechanism for evaluating service delivery at key intervals or decision points. They complement, but do not substitute for, the day-to-day responsibilities of managers to oversee service performance in line with best practice, Council expectations, and community needs.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The policy addresses several current issues, including:

· Lack of understanding about when a Section 17A review is required and for which functions and activities;

· No consistent, Council-wide approach to conducting reviews;

· Limited tracking and reporting of compliance with legislative requirements; and

· Unclear decision-making processes for approving reviews and exemptions.

5.2 To address these issues, the policy:

· Defines key terms, including local infrastructure, public services, and regulatory functions;

· Provides high-level guidance on when and how reviews should be undertaken;

· Establishes reporting requirements to improve tracking and transparency; and

· Introduces an approval framework to ensure clear and consistent decision-making across the organisation.

5.3 Currently, there are no specific delegations for Section 17A reviews. As a result, all reviews and exemptions, even where an exemption could be justified on the basis that the cost of a review would outweigh the benefits, must be approved by Council.

5.4 The proposed policy introduces a framework for approving reviews and exemptions, aligned with the Council’s existing financial delegations:

· Chief Executive Officer: May approve reviews or exemptions where the whole-of-life contract value or the total annual cost of the service or function (whichever is greater) exceeds the financial delegation of the relevant group manager and is within the Chief Executive Officer’s delegated authority.

· Group Managers: May approve reviews or exemptions where the whole-of-life contract value or the total annual cost of the service or function (whichever is greater) is within their delegated authority.

· Council or Standing Committees: will approve reviews or exemptions from review where the financial delegation is exceeded or where the review is considered for high significance in accordance with the Significance and Engagement Policy.

5.5 This framework ensures that significant service delivery decisions remain appropriately governed by the Council while improving efficiency for lower-risk, lower-cost services.

5.6 The policy supports the Council’s broader strategic objectives of promoting financial prudence, continuous improvement, and effective governance.

5.7 The policy will also support better use of the Council's time and resources by focusing Council decision-making on services and reviews that are strategic or significant.

5.8 The table below provides examples of recent Section 17A reviews and how they would be treated under the proposed policy:

Service/Function	Last Review	Review or Exemption	Approx Annual Budget	Approved by	Under Proposed Policy
Community Facilities	May 2025	Review	$4.5m	Council (TBC)	No change (Council approval)
Regulatory Services	March 2025	Review	$0.8m	Council	CEO may approve
River Management	October 2024	Exemption	$7.2m	Council	No change (Council approval)
Waste Management Services	May 2024	Review	$10.5m	Council	No change (Council approval)
Transportation	May 2024	Review	$13.4m	Council	No change (Council approval)
Legal Function	Feb 2024	Review	$1.2m	CEO after delegation by Council	No review required under policy

5.9 There is expected to be little change for the Council’s major infrastructure, services, or functions (such as Waste, Transportation, and Water), where reviews and exemptions will continue to be considered and approved by the Council. However, these activities will benefit from improved tracking, reporting, and monitoring processes to strengthen compliance and visibility.

5.10 The key benefits of the new policy will be realised for internal support services (such as Communications, Finance, and Information Services), where formal Section 17A reviews are not mandated and would no longer be required unless warranted. Smaller-scale services (such as aerodromes and community partnerships) will also benefit, with approval for reviews and exemptions delegated to the relevant Group Manager or the Chief Executive Officer, streamlining decision-making and reducing unnecessary reporting to the Council.

5.11 Any significant changes to service delivery identified through a Section 17A review will still be referred to the Council for decision-making, in line with the Significance and Engagement Policy and the Local Government Act 2002.

5.12 The Section 17A Review Policy itself will be reviewed as required due to legislative changes, operational needs, or best practice updates.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 Section 17A reviews are a legislative requirement unless specific exemption criteria apply. While these reviews have the potential to support long-term cost savings by informing more cost-effective service delivery, they also involve short-term financial impacts. External reviews incur direct costs to the Council, while internal reviews require staff time and resources.

6.2 Implementing a Section 17A Review Policy will help manage and mitigate unnecessary expenditure by:

· Avoiding reviews where the cost of undertaking the review would outweigh the likely benefits;

· Providing clear guidance on when reviews should be conducted internally versus externally, ensuring cost-effective use of resources; and

· Aligning decision-making with financial delegation limits, ensuring that review approvals are consistent with financial accountability and responsibility.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the policy and the delegations	Provides clarity on review requirements; improves reporting, tracking, and decision-making; ensures consistent compliance with Section 17A obligations; allows smaller-scale decisions to be made efficiently by managers and the Chief Executive Officer.	The Council will not directly approve every review and exemption, with some decisions delegated to management.
2.	Do not approve the policy and the delegations	The Council will retain direct oversight of all reviews and exemptions.	Staff will lack clear guidance on how to apply Section 17A requirements; potential for inconsistent decision-making, inefficiencies, increased administrative burden, and higher costs.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The policy aligns with statutory requirements under Section 17A of the LGA.

8.2 It will ensure the Council meets its legal obligations and will reduce the risk of non-compliance.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Iwi engagement has not been undertaken in the development of this policy, as it addresses internal operational processes to meet existing legislative requirements under the Local Government Act 2002. Engagement with iwi may, however, be appropriate at the individual review level, particularly where a Section 17A review identifies or results in a significant change to the delivery or nature of a service.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

10.1 The proposed Section 17A Review Policy has been assessed as low significance in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The policy relates to internal operational processes for meeting existing legislative requirements under the Local Government Act 2002. It does not result in changes to service levels, community outcomes, or the delivery of services. Therefore, public consultation is not required prior to adoption.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	No, as it relates to internal operational processes for meeting external legislative requirements.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	No, as above.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	No, as above.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	No, as above.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	No, as above.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	No, as above.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Low	No, as above.
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	Low	No, as above.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Low	No, as above.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	No, as above.

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 A Section 17A Review Policy will require internal and external communication strategies:

11.1.1 Internal: Ensuring council staff and elected members understand review processes and approval requirements.

11.1.2 External: Informing the public about the outcomes of reviews.

11.2 Public consultation is not required for this policy but may be required if significant changes to service delivery arise from a review.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The risks associated with not adopting a Section 17A Review Policy include:

12.1.1 Legal Risk: Potential non-compliance with the LGA.

12.1.2 Financial Risk: Unnecessary spending on reviews with limited value.

12.1.3 Reputational Risk: Public perception of ineffective service delivery or lack of transparency.

12.1.4 Operational Risk: Lack of consistency in decision-making on reviews.

12.2 A formal policy mitigates these risks by providing structured guidance, clear approval processes, and transparency in decision-making.

13. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

13.1 At present there are no delegations in relation to s17A reviews, so all exemptions from review and reviews must come to the Council for decision.

14. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

14.1 A Section 17A Review Policy will ensure Tasman District Council meets legislative requirements efficiently, cost-effectively, and transparently. It will provide a structured framework for identifying, approving, and reporting on service delivery reviews while ensuring public accountability.

15. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

15.1 Communication of the policy to staff.

15.2 Creation of procedures and systems to document and report on s17A reviews.

15.3 Implementation and monitoring of the policy.

16. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

s17A Policy

161

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.13 Local Government Funding Agency Nominating Councils

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Mike Drummond, Chief Financial Officer
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-05-14

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To gain direction on the Council remaining a Nominating Local Authority (NLA) to the LGFA Shareholders’ Council.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The 2025 Annual General Meeting of the Local Government Funding Agency Ltd (LGFA) is scheduled for 18 November 2025 in Wellington. The agenda items will include the election of Nominating Local Authorities (NLA’s) to the Shareholders’ Council.

2.2 Under the Shareholders’ Agreement, the two NLA members who have been in office the longest since their election must retire by rotation. They can also offer themselves for re-election. This year Tasman District Council will retire and either Christchurch City Council and/or New Plymouth District Council will retire. Both Christchurch City Council and New Plymouth District Council who were appointed at the same time, advise that they are seeking re-election.

2.3 The Council has been a member of the Shareholders’ Council since the forming of the LGFA in 2012. There are no elected member appointees to the Shareholders’ Council. The Council is currently represented on the Shareholders’ Council by the Chief Financial Officer.

2.4 As the Chief Financial Officer, I am an active member of the LGFA Shareholders Council and see clear benefits for the Council in our continued involvement. The LGFA covers the travel and other costs associated with being a member of the Shareholders Council.

2.5 The recommendation is that the Council advises the LGFA that it wishes to remain a Nominating Local Authority and is standing for re-election at the November 2025 LGFA AGM.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Local Government Funding Agency Nominating Councils report, RCN25-05-14; and

2. confirms that Tasman District Council will offer itself as a Nominating Local Authority for re-election to the Shareholders’ Council at the 2025 Local Government Funding Agency Limited Annual General Meeting.

4. Background / Horopaki

LGFA Shareholders’ Council Positions

4.1 The Shareholders’ Council is comprised of between five and ten members with the current members being the Crown and nine council members. Each NLA can appoint a member to the Shareholders’ Council and the nine NLAs are currently Western Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Auckland Council, Tasman District Council, Wellington City Council, Christchurch City Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Hamilton City Council, Tauranga City Council and New Plymouth District Council.

4.2 Under Section 4.4 of the Shareholders’ Agreement, the two NLA members who have been in office the longest since their election must retire by rotation. They can also offer themselves for re-election. Accordingly, this year Tasman District Council and Christchurch City Council, New Plymouth District Council will retire and seek re-election.

4.3 If other Shareholders wish to nominate any candidates as NLAs on the Shareholders’ Council, then the nomination must be received by the LGFA by the close off for resolutions going to the AGM (September/ October 2025).

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 This is a routine decision. The Council’s involvement on the LGFA Shareholders’ Council has been ongoing since the Council worked with eight other councils and the Crown to form the LGFA in 2012.

5.2 The role of the Shareholders' Council is to advise Shareholders on certain matters (with Shareholders, and not the Shareholders' Council, to make decisions with respect to those matters). The Shareholders' Council shall:

5.2.1 review the performance of the Company and the Board, and report to Shareholders on these matters on a periodic basis, being no less frequently than every six months; and

5.2.2 make recommendations to Shareholders as to the appointment, removal, re-election, replacement and remuneration of Directors. For this purpose, the Shareholders' Council may request information from, and meet with, Directors (or persons nominated for election as Directors); and

5.2.3 make recommendations to Shareholders as to any matters which require the approval of Shareholders pursuant to clause 5.1; and (d) endeavour to ensure that Shareholders are fully informed on matters concerning the Company, and endeavour to co-ordinate Shareholders on decisions required of Shareholders with respect to governance of the Company.

5.3 Participation in the Shareholders' Council allows for insights and involvement in the decision-making processes for the LGFA.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 This decision has no direct financial or budgetary implications. If the Council is re-elected as a nominating Local Authority, the costs of the Chief Financial Officer’s travel to the Shareholders’ Council meetings will continue to be met by the LGFA.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	That the Council confirms its previous position and remains a Nominating Local Authority.	This option maintains the existing status quo. It allows the Council to continue to participate in the decision making and recommendations that occur through the LGFA Shareholders’ Council. The Council incurs cost for staff time for this involvement (travel costs are met by the LGFA). The time involved is considered moderate as the Shareholders’ Council meets around four times a year.
2.	That the Council advises that it no longer wishes to be a Nominating Local Authority.	This would open the way for another shareholding council to participate in the Shareholders’ Council.	This approach is not recommended as participation in the Shareholders' Council allows for insights and involvement in the decision-making processes.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The Mayor has delegated authority to vote the Council shares. This authority is only used when it’s not practical to have matters considered by the Council due to time constraints.

8.2 The LGFA Shareholders Agreement covers the Shareholders Council (Attachment 1) Clauses 4.4 to 4.8 (reproduced below) cover the Nominating Local Authority and shareholders council provisions.

8.3 4.3 Appointment of Nominating Local Authority by Shareholders: A Principal Shareholder may be appointed or removed as a nominator to the Shareholders' Council ("Nominating Local Authority") at any time by an Ordinary Resolution, provided that no more than nine Nominating Local Authorities may be so appointed.

8.4 4.4 Appointment of members of the Shareholders' Council: Each Nominating Local Authority may appoint one member of the Shareholders' Council, and remove and replace any member so appointed by it, in each case, by notice to the Company. Each member appointed by a Nominated Local Authority must be an employee or councillor of that Nominating Local Authority. In addition, the New Zealand Government (for so long as it is a Shareholder) may appoint one other member of the Shareholders' Council, and remove and replace such other member so appointed by it, in each case, by notice to the Company.

8.5 4.5 Notification and consent: Each member of the Shareholders' Council appointed by a Nominating Local Authority must give consent in writing to the appointment (which consent shall confirm that the person shall comply with the terms of this agreement as they apply to members of the Shareholders' Council). Notice by a Nominating Local Authority of the appointment of a member and consent from that person to the appointment must be received by the Company before any member may attend a meeting of the Shareholders' Council.

8.6 4.6 Rotation of Nominating Local Authorities: Beginning at, and including, the annual meeting for 2013, the Shareholders shall ensure that two Nominating Local Authorities shall retire from office at the annual meeting of the Company in each year. The Nominating Local Authorities to retire shall be those who have been longest in office since their last election. If two or more of those Nominating Local Authorities were last elected on the same day, the Nominating Local Authority to retire shall (unless they otherwise agree among themselves) be determined by lot. A retiring Nominating Local Authority shall be eligible for re-election.

8.7 4.7 Re-election of retiring Nominating Local Authority: A Nominating Local Authority retiring by rotation at a meeting shall, if standing for re-election, be deemed to have been re-elected unless:

(a) some other Principal Shareholder is elected to fill the vacated office; or

(b) it is resolved not to fill the vacated office; or

8.8 4.8 Nomination of Nominating Local Authority: No Principal Shareholder may be elected as a Nominating Local Authority at a meeting (other than a member retiring at the meeting) unless, not less than one week prior to the notice of that meeting being sent to Shareholders, that Principal Shareholder has notified the Company in writing that it wishes to seek that election. The Company shall give notice that the Principal Shareholder is seeking that election to all persons entitled to attend the meeting together with, or as part of, the notice of meeting.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 This is a routine matter and no specific engagement with Iwi has occurred.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

1.2 This is considered a routine decision of low significance and no engagement with the community is required.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Routine matter with no public interest.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	No.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Yes	This is of a routine nature.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 The LGFA Shareholders’ Council and the LGFA will be advised of the decision.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The recommended decision continues the status quo position.

12.2 The Council’s participation as a Nominating Local Authority is important given our debt levels and our reliance on the LGFA for funding. Participation in the Shareholders’ Council is not onerous and allows us to continue to participate in the overall decision-making processes.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Climate Change considerations are not relevant to this report.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 There are no other policy decisions or plans relevant to this decision.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 This decision is a relatively routine matter. The recommendation is for the Council to continue its role as a Nominating Local Authority and therefore remain on the LGFA Shareholders’ Council.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

1.3 The Council will advise the Local Government Funding Agency and the Shareholders’ Council of its decision. If nominations exceed the vacancies available, then there will be a shareholder vote on the matter at the LGFA Annual General Meeting in November 2025.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Local Government Funding Agency Shareholders Agreement

172

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.15 Mayoral Update Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Tim King, Mayor
Report Number:	RCN25-05-16

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 Annual Plan budgeting has been the focus for both elected members and Council staff during this first quarter of 2025. Balancing the challenges of providing Council services alongside rates increases has been challenging. I appreciate the huge amount of mahi that has been provided by staff and our elected members.

1.2 Council staff and elected members have continued to work on the Council’s preferred option for the Local Water Done Well programme with public consultation now open. There is still more work to be done before we can adopt the Water Service Delivery Plan and submit it to Taumata Arowai by 3 September 2025.

1.3 Nelson City Council Mayor, Nick Smith and I have had discussions with Ministry of Education staff recently regarding the Ministry’s school bus services. For our District, the current service provided for high school students in Māpua requires them to cross the busy state highway to meet the bus. And yet, the same bus is parked overnight in the Māpua Primary School grounds! A ridiculous situation that provides a safety risk for the students.
A similar safety risk for school students in Hira, Nelson has been resolved.

1.4 Thank you to those Councillors, our Chief Executive, Leonie Rae and Golden Bay Community Board member, Robert Hewison for representing the Council at the ANZAC Day events held throughout the District. It was great to see the increasing number of younger people attending these services.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Mayoral Update Report, RCN25-05-16.

3. Mayoral Activity

3.1 On behalf of Local Government New Zealand, I presented their submission on the proposed Resource Management Act Bill to the Select Committee on 13 March 2025.

3.2 Our second citizenship ceremony for 2025 was held on 19 March 2025 with another forty-eight new citizens.

3.3 Ms Rae and I had our regular catch up with Nelson-Tasman Regional Development Agency Chair, Sarah-Jane Weir and Chief Executive, Fiona Wilson on 20 March 2025.

3.4 The Motueka Grey Power AGM was held on 21 March 2025.

3.5 The Council hosted a delegation from our Japanese friendly town, Fujimi Machi during March. Fifteen students and 4 adults attended a pōwhiri at Te Āwhina Marae on 21 March 2025. While they were here, the students attended regular classes at Waimea College.

3.6 Mayor Nick Smith and I met with the governance team at Nelson Hospital for an update on the proposed hospital redevelopment on 25 March 2025.

3.7 Nelson-Tasman Hospice Chief Executive, Tony Gray and I met on 26 March 2025.

3.8 The new Richmond Football Club changing rooms were officially opened on 28 March 2025.

3.9 The CDEM Group meeting was held on 2 April 2025.

3.10 The quarterly catch-up meeting with Chamber of Commerce, Chief Executive, Ali Boswijk was held on 3 April 2025.

3.11 A multi-agency briefing was held on 3 April 2025 prior to the forecasted weather event. While it is always good to be prepared for these events, I’m pleased that although we had a lot of rain, there was very little damage.

3.12 The Local Government reference group met on 4 April 2025.

3.13 The Appleby Fire Brigade farewelled Ted and Clare Ford on 5 April 2025. Ted was a long-standing member of the brigade.

3.14 The first meeting of the new Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve Board was held on 8 April 2025.

3.15 The Joint Shareholders Committee met on 8 April 2025.

3.16 Leonie Rae and I met with the group who are looking at a proposed development near Motueka.

3.17 The official opening of Trinder Engineering’s new complex off McShane Road was held on 10 April 2022.

3.18 The Local Government New Zealand Zone 5&6 conference was held in Christchurch on 10 and 11 April 2025.

3.19 Our third citizenship ceremony was held on 16 April 2025. We have increased the number of ceremonies this year in an attempt to catch up with the backlog of new citizens.

3.20 I attended the ANZAC Day Services in Motueka, Riwaka and Ngātimoti.

ANZAC Day Service at Ngātimoti

3.21 Mayor Nick Smith, Leonie Rae and I met with the Trustees of the Tasman Bays Heritage Trust on 29 April 2025.

3.22 Mayor Nick Smith, Infrastructure Holdings Limited Chair, Sue Sheldon and I met on 29 April 2025 to recommend an appointment for the current vacancy on the Port Nelson Limited Board following the resignation of former Chairperson, Paul Zealand.

3.23 Rachel Boyack and I met on 30 April 2025.

4. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 08 May 2025

7.16 Annual Plan 2025/2026 Consultation Document Report

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	8 May 2025
Report Author:	Chris Choat, Communications & Change Manager
Report Authorisers:	John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN25-05-17

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to adopt the Annual Plan 2025/2026 consultation document.

1.2 The report is in response to the Council’s decisions made at the 30 April 2025 meeting regarding the Annual Plan 2025/2026 with specific reference to the Consultation Document

1.3 This report also seeks the Council’s agreement to delegate the approval of minor editorial changes to the Mayor and the Chief Executive.

1.4 It is also seeking approval to manage public consultation regarding the proposed limited paid parking initiative within the Richmond CBD as a separate consultative process to run concurrently.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 There are a range of pressures that are increasing the Councill’s costs for 2025/2026 compared with those in the LTP 2024-2034 as detailed at the Council meeting on 30 April 2025 (RCN25-04-3).

2.2 These costs were recognised as having a material impact on the required rate revenue forecast in Year 2 of the 2024-2034 LTP. As a result, the Council is required to consult with its community.

2.3 The Council is a complex business with several avenues of expenditure and revenue and a corresponding number of opportunities for efficiencies and/or savings to be identified. The identification began in earnest from late last year when cost increases and related expenditure issues became apparent.

2.4 This process has been managed through several workshops with the Council with interrelated solutions that support each other to reach the desired savings.

2.5 The solutions identified within the related decisions do not stand alone from each other and form an overall package of savings. Each of the solutions are not significant on their own but come together to deliver a consolidated amount of savings.

2.6 At the 30 April 2025 meeting the Council agreed to produce a consultation document supporting a shortened consultation period opening 12 May until 25 May 2025.

2.7 This situation leads to a consultation process that does not enable line by line examination of each efficiency or saving. This process has been managed by elected members and staff since October 2024 and subsequently affirmed as a total package at the 30 April 2025 Council meeting.

2.8 There will be no submissions hearing for the Annual Plan consultation. The Council will deliberate, after considering all submissions on 4 June 2025.

2.9 The purpose of the consultation process is to identify and highlight the proposed changes to operational programmes and budgets, to services and to the capital programme. It is seeking submissions either in support of the changes to deliver a rate revenue increase of 1.8% above the forecast level of 7% or to provide solutions that enable further savings whilst maintaining the quality of life in Tasman.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Annual Plan 2025/2026 Consultation Document Report RCN25-05-17; and

2. adopts the following supporting information for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 consultation document as required by section 95A(4) of the Local Government Act 2002:

· prospective financial information (financial accounts, funding impact statement, financial regulations benchmarks and reserve funds (Attachment 1 to the agenda report);

· prospective funding impact statement (rates) (Attachment 2 of the agenda report); and

3. agrees that the consultation document in Attachment 3 to the agenda report provides a fair representation of the changes from Year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 and as proposed in the Annual Plan 2025/2026; and

4. adopts the consultation document in Attachment 3 to the agenda report incorporating any minor amendments at the meeting for release as the basis for community consultation during the period 12 May to 25 May 2025 in accordance with sections 82, 82A, 95 and 95A of the Local Government Act 2002; and

5. delegates to the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer approval of any minor edits to the supporting information and consultation document prior to them being published and made available for public consultation; and

6. approves a concurrent consultation exercise on the introduction of limited paid parking within the Richmond CBD.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The LTP 2024-2034 planned for a rates revenue increase of 7% (excluding growth) and for net debt at $290 million for Year 2 2025/2026.

4.2 The Council adopted an LTP 2024-2034 that contained a higher level of financial risk than in the past. This was done to keep rates increases in the first three years (in particular) at a manageable level for Tasman ratepayers at a time of general cost increases and cost of living pressures.

4.3 Since the adoption of the LTP 2024-2034 there have been some substantial upward cost pressures. Some of these are driven externally and are largely outside the Council’s control.

4.4 Without intervention, the forecasted rate revenue rise was 15%, a number deemed unacceptable. Since the impact of the upwards cost pressures and the forecast increase in rate revenue became apparent late last year, elected members and staff have worked to identify solutions to manage and lessen the impact of the cost increases on ratepayers.

4.5 The last six months have seen a number of opportunities identified across the organisation to provide a series of cost savings, not significant on their own, but when meshed together enable significant savings.

4.6 The identified savings have enabled the Council to propose an 8.8% rate revenue rise against the forecast 7% rise in the LTP 2024-2034.

4.7 As the solutions, if viewed in isolation, do not make a significant impact it is difficult to consult on each and every one as such it is proposed to consult on the approach and the total package.

4.8 As part of the Annual Plan consultation, it is proposed to seek community feedback on paid all day parking within the Richmond CBD. This initiative will help to reduce the impact of rates increases and was identified within the 2016 Parking Strategy. The consultation enables public feedback on the details of this initiative such as the specific car parks, days and level of parking charges.

4.9 The paid parking would be limited to a cost on 68 all day parking spaces within three areas in the outer ring of parking available in existing areas adjacent to Queen Street. It is proposed to introduce a system of the first hour free with a maximum cost of $4 a day for all day parking.

4.10 The Council is required to adopt the information that it relied upon in developing the content of the consultation document, before adopting the consultation document. The following documents are attached for adoption:

· prospective financial information (financial accounts, funding impact statement, financial regulations benchmarks and reserve funds (Attachment 1); and

· prospective funding impact statement (rates) (Attachment 2).

5. Options / Kōwhiringa

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Adopt the draft Consultation Document (Attachment 3) for release

Enables the consultation process to proceed albeit within a compressed timeframe.

There is no disadvantage.

Not accept the draft Consultation Document for publication

No advantage.

May compromise Annual Plan timeline, risking striking the rates by 1 July 2025. This would have a very significant impact on the Council’s Finances for 2025/2026 as our system would require expensive and difficult changes to enable retrospective application of rates increases. This process would likely impact the Council’s reputation.

5.2 Option 1 is recommended. The Council has undertaken a thorough business review process to get to today’s decisions, and we have no scope in our timeline to make further significant changes. Further changes are also likely to more seriously impact levels of service and/or core Council functions.

6. Legal / Ngā ture

6.1 Under section 95 of the LGA the Council must prepare an Annual Plan for each financial year and consult in a way that meets the requirements of section 82 before adopting the Annual Plan.

6.2 Section 95A(5) of the LGA states that a difference, variation or departure is material if it could, itself or in conjunction with other differences, influence the decisions or assessments of those reading or responding to the consultation document.

6.3 Section 82 (1) contains several principles for consultation that the Council is required to meet summarised below:

6.3.1 Interested or affected persons should be provided with reasonable access to relevant information in a form that is appropriate for their preferences.

6.3.2 Interested or affected persons should be encouraged to present their views.

6.3.3 Interested or affected persons should be given clear information about the purpose of the consultation and scope of decisions.

6.3.4 Persons invited or encouraged to present their views should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so in a manner and format that meets their preferences and needs.

6.3.5 The views presented should be received by the Council with an open mind and should be given due consideration.

6.4 Section 82(3) provides discretion to the Council about how it observes these principles.

6.5 In this case several of the proposed changes will have an impact on services but don’t affect levels of service that are formally stated in the LTP 2024-2034. At least some of these will be in significant activities but staff do not consider them to be significant changes and therefore do not trigger the need to amend the LTP.

7. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

7.1 Staff will approach Iwi directly to discuss the changes in the Annual Plan and will provide any feedback they have to Council at its deliberations meeting.

8. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

8.1 At the Council meeting on 30 April 2025 the significance and engagement of the proposed Annual Plan was considered.

8.2 It was agreed because of the extended time period required to carry out the business review and discuss cost reduction/revenue increasing activities to achieve an 8.8% rates revenue increase, the time available for consultation is compressed.

8.3 It was also agreed that compressed consultation is worth doing to gain some feedback from the community to inform elected members’ decision making and to help reduce the legal risks.

8.4 To meet the principles in section 82 in the LGA in the compressed timeframe, staff recommend publishing a consultation document online and in hardcopy versions. Hardcopy versions will be made available in Council’s offices and libraries. A Shape Tasman page will be developed where people can access the consultation document and other related information.

8.5 Staff recommend that the Council carries out an online consultation session at which the context and key changes can be explained and verbal feedback from attendees received. Given the limited time available staff do not recommend undertaking a formal hearing.

8.6 The Annual Plan consultation will be publicised in Newsline, newspaper advertising and through social media.

8.7 Targeted consultation will be undertaken with Nelson City Council and the industrial water users affected by the charge for water in Nelson Industrial Water Supply Area.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	There are multiple changes proposed in the Annual Plan and the number of different topics means that one or more of them will be of higher public interest to a reasonable proportion of the community. The rates revenue increase level is also likely to be of high public interest.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	There are multiple changes proposed in the Annual Plan that could have a range of wellbeing impacts. In general, the scale of the changes are not considered likely to have a high impact on well-being.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	For most of the changes proposed in the Annual Plan the Council could choose to reverse them at any point. There are a minority of changes that once implemented, reversing them would be very difficult e.g. selling property or ETS credits.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	Several of the proposed changes impact strategic assets but there is no proposal to change the control or ownership of these assets.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Medium	Many of the changes have minor to moderate impacts on levels of service
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	High	The proposed changes are designed to reduce the rates revenue requirement by several percent for the 2025/2026 year.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	NA
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	NA
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	NA
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	NA

9. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

9.1 The Annual Plan consultation will be publicised in Newsline, newspaper advertising and through social media.

10. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

10.1 The recommendation to carry out consultation, albeit compressed, helps to moderate the legal risk that the Council’s decision will be challenged through a judicial review. With the compressed nature of the consultation being a compromise, there is residual risk of legal challenge.

10.2 The limited opportunity for the public to participate in the compressed consultation proposed may exacerbate the views of some parts of the community that the Council is not listening and considering the feedback received in consultation adequately. There is a risk of negative media articles and public comment about the compromised consultation process, but the risk is lower than if no consultation is undertaken.

11. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

11.1 The overall impact on climate resilience and adaptation of this consultation process will be minimal if registered at all.

12. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

12.1 The Council is attempting to deliver on its vision Thriving and Resilient Tasman Communities and the strategic priorities in the LTP 2024-2034, whilst avoiding the cost of rates being unaffordable.

12.2 The consultation process enables the decision-making process and the decisions themselves to be made in line with the strategic priorities to be discussed.

13. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

13.1 The Council has had to confront major cost increases in the development of the Annual Plan 2025/2026. This has led to a substantial business review process that has tried to minimise cost and maximise revenue across the entire organisation. This process has tried to save costs while preserving the services that the community highly values and/or are legal functions for Council to perform. This process has generated significant savings, but these have not been enough to offset the cost increases. As a result, the rate revenue requirement and debt for 2025/2026 will increase by more than planned in the LTP.

13.2 To keep the Annual Plan process progressing in time to strike rates by 30 June 2025, Council is asked to adopt the attached draft consultation document.

14. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

14.1 Staff will engage with parties they know to be interested or affected by the proposed changes resolved to give them early notice of these changes and the upcoming consultation.

14.2 Submissions will be accepted between 12 and 25 May 2025, and the Council will meet to deliberate on the consultation feedback on 4 June 2025. The final Annual Plan 2025/2026 is due to be adopted on 25 June 2025

15. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Financial Information	235
2.⇩	Funding Impact Statement	242
3.⇨	Annual Plan 2025/2026 Consultation Document (Under Separate Cover)

Mayor	Mayor T King
Deputy Mayor	Deputy Mayor S Bryant
Councillors	Councillor C Butler	Councillor M Kininmonth
	Councillor G Daikee	Councillor C Mackenzie
	Councillor B Dowler	Councillor K Maling
	Councillor J Ellis	Councillor B Maru
	Councillor M Greening	Councillor D Shallcrass
	Councillor C Hill	Councillor T Walker