Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Tasman District Council Agenda – 27 May 2025

7 Reports

7.1 Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy Deliberations

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	27 May 2025
Report Author:	Brylee Wayman, Senior Community Policy Advisor - Data Analyst; Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager
Report Authorisers:	John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN25-05-21

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

1.1 The purpose of the report is to assist the Council in deliberating on the feedback received during public consultation on the Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034 (2025 Review) (the Policy).

1.2 This report is also to enable the Council to make decisions on changes to the Policy.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Development and Financial Contributions Policy outlines the Council’s approach to funding development infrastructure via development contributions under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and financial contributions under the Tasman Resource Management Plan. During deliberations on the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034, the Council resolved to conduct a further review of the Policy in 2025. The 2025 review proposed two notable changes for the Policy, regarding stormwater detention discounts and remissions for developments on Māori land, and several minor administrative amendments to the Policy.

2.2 Public consultation on the 2025 Review of the Policy was open from 24 March to 28 April 2025. A total of 13 submissions were received. There were no late submissions.

2.3 At the public hearing on 16 May 2025, seven submitters verbally presented their submissions on the Policy to the Council.

2.4 In this report, staff summarise the feedback received and provide advice on specific issues raised by submitters.

2.5 The majority of submitters gave feedback on the two notable changes.

2.6 Staff have considered public feedback and recommend proceeding with the proposed changes.

2.7 Staff will prepare the final Policy for adoption at the Council meeting on 25 June 2025.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy Deliberations report, RCN25-05-21; and

2. notes the submissions received on the Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034 (2025 Review); and

3. agrees to proceed with the proposed changes in the Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034 (2025 Review); and

4. notes that the Council will be presented with the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034 (2025 Review) for adoption at its meeting on 25 June 2025 and the Policy will come into effect from 1 July 2025.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Development and Financial Contributions Policy outlines the Council’s approach to funding development infrastructure via development contributions under the LGA and financial contributions under the Tasman Resource Management Plan.

4.2 Section 106(6) of the LGA requires the Policy to be reviewed at least once every three years using a consultation process that gives effect to the requirements of section 82.

4.3 Following consultation on the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034, the Council concluded that there were matters raised that warranted further engagement and resolved to conduct a further review of the Policy in 2025.

4.4 On 20 March 2025, the Council approved the Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034 (2025 Review) for consultation. The 2025 review of the Policy includes two notable changes proposed for the Policy, which relate to the criteria for stormwater detention discounts and the remissions for developments on Māori land. There are also some minor administrative amendments to the Policy. There are no changes proposed to the Development Contribution charges.

4.5 The Policy, including the charges, will be reviewed again in 2026/2027, as part of the 2027 Long Term Plan, and will also consider any changes to legislation, national policies, and the Tasman Resource Management Plan. On 28 February 2025, the Government announced that development contributions will be replaced by a new development levy system. The timeline to finalise and implement these changes is not yet confirmed, but implementation is likely to be two-five years away.

4.6 The consultation period for the Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024 – 2034 (2025 Review) was open between 24 March and 28 April 2005. We received 13 submissions.

4.7 At the public hearing on 16 May 2025, seven submitters verbally presented their submissions on the Policy to the Council.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 We received 13 submissions. The majority of submitters gave feedback on the two notable changes proposed for the Policy, which relate to the criteria for stormwater detention discounts and the remissions for developments on Māori land (eight submissions each). Two submissions related to minor administrative changes and three submissions related to the timing and need for the 2025 review of the Policy. Two submissions also provided feedback on another aspect of the Policy.

Stormwater Detention Discounts

5.2 The proposed change is to limit the provision of a discount on Stormwater Development Contributions to apply only to development in the Richmond Intensive Development Area, for developments which detain primary stormwater to the maximum allowed under Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM) standards (25% discount would apply).

5.3 Several submitters (34712, 34718 and 34773) suggested a greater differential in development contributions be applied between dispersed greenfield development and infill, intensive development, particularly in Richmond.

Staff advice

5.3.1 The Council noted similar feedback during consultation on the Policy in 2024 and recommended investigating this in the next triennial review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy (scheduled for 2026/2027). That review will also consider a change to the geographic area eligible for a discount to align with zoning changes in the Tasman Resource Management Plan, such as the Medium Density Residential Zone which has been proposed by Plan Change 81. A review of the catchment boundaries for Development Contributions charges may also result in a differential between greenfield and infill developments in Richmond.

5.4 Two submitters (34829 and 34830) opposed the change to the current stormwater discount policy. They suggest developers who install and maintain their own permanent stormwater detention systems should not have to pay full Development Contributions. They also suggest that not all developments benefit equally from Council stormwater networks and a blanket full charge is inappropriate.

Staff advice

5.4.1 As outlined in the consultation material, the Council has significant investment for stormwater management that is required to manage the effects of growth, including overland flows, even with the provision of some on-site stormwater detention. Even with detention, total run off still increases, which increases total flows downstream, and can still result in cumulative peak flows increasing. The development areas served by the Council’s stormwater upgrades are likely to require complimentary detention to maximise the capacity for growth from these upgrades.

5.4.2 The LGA allows for a common charge to be set across a grouped geographic area of development, provided the grouping is done in a manner that balances practical and administrative efficiencies with considerations of fairness and equity. However, subject to changes in central government legislation, staff will review the current catchment boundaries as part of the next review with the 2027 Long Term Plan to ensure the groupings and charges are appropriate.

5.5 Submitter 34810 suggested the discount should still apply if temporary or permanent detention was required due to a delay in Council upgrades to the stormwater network.

Staff advice

5.5.1 Staff do not support this as the Council would still incur the cost of the longer-term infrastructure solution but without the full income from development contributions needed to fund that investment. If a developer develops ahead of the Council’s infrastructure programme, it will need to fund the infrastructure costs, unless the services are covered by a development agreement.

5.6 Two submitters (34802 and 34811) do not support any discount being provided as this shifts the costs on to others and is not consistent with the fairness and equity principle of Development Contributions.

Staff advice

5.6.1 Staff recommend investigating changes to the Development Contributions model, when it is updated as part of the 2027 Long Term Plan, to account for these discounts when setting the stormwater development contributions charges.

Remissions for Development on Māori Land

5.7 In 2024, the current Policy introduced remissions for some developments on Māori freehold land and Māori customary land in order to meet an LGA requirement that development contributions policies must support the principles set out in the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, namely removing or reducing the barriers to development and full utilisation of the land for the benefit of Māori landowners, their whānau, and their hapū.

5.8 The proposed change is to extend the criteria to papakāinga developments on general land held in collective Māori ownership, or land which has been transferred from the Crown to, and is held by, a post settlement governance entity as a result of a treaty settlement. However, the proposed remission is reduced to 50%, at the Council’s discretion, rather than a full remission of development contributions for those developments. We also proposed the removal of the remission for developments on urupā or wāhi tapu sites, and for any not-for-profit social, cultural, ora, or educational centre developments.

5.9 Three submitters expressed support for the proposed changes. One of those submitters (34827) suggested the remission for not-for-profit developments should be retained.

Staff advice

5.9.1 Staff recommend removing not-for-profit developments, as proposed, as the extension of the criteria to include developments on general land is a much broader criteria with a greater risk of financial implications. At its meeting on 20 March 2025, the Council resolved that no remissions will be provided to not-for-profit community facilities in general. To be consistent with this approach, the remission has also been removed for not-for-profit developments on general land in collective Māori ownership.

5.10 One submitter (34802) wanted to limit the remission to developments on Māori land, not development on all land. The Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 defines Māori land as Māori freehold and customary land.

Staff advice

5.10.1 There is no developable Māori customary land in the Tasman District and 21 Māori freehold land titles, most of which is in rural areas and not likely to be developed or be subject to development contributions charges (other than transportation). Limiting the criteria to these land statuses is unlikely to facilitate actual development. Staff recommend proceeding with the proposed change to extend the criteria to other types of land.

5.11 Submitter 34810 recommended using the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 definition of general land owned by Māori. This means “General land that is owned for a beneficial estate in fee simple by a Māori or by a group of persons of whom a majority are Māori.”

Staff advice

5.11.1 Staff recommend keeping the criteria as general land held in collective Māori ownership to keep consistency with the remissions provided for other community housing developments. These remissions are not available for developments on land owned by an individual.

5.12 Submitter 34773 requested the remission be extended to community housing providers. Submitter 34811 opposef the changes to the Policy, noting that Development Contributions are a financial barrier for all residents, and the provision of remissions for papakāinga developments on Māori land undermines the principles of fairness and equity.

Staff advice

5.12.1 The current Policy provides full remissions for a list of community housing providers, and any community housing provider registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority.

5.12.2 Staff note that the current Policy provides a full 100% remission to these developments, meaning there is some inconsistency with the remission for papakāinga developments.

5.12.3 The remission for community housing providers is an area that could be reviewed during the next review in 2026/2027. It is out of scope for the changes we have consulted on in this review.

5.13 Submitter 34818 raised concerns about the remission applying to the Wakatū Motueka West Development.

Staff advice

5.13.1 This development is not proposed to be a papakāinga development. The proposed remission for development of Māori land will not apply to this development. However, parts of the development may be undertaken by registered community housing providers, and they will be able to apply for the existing community housing remission.

5.14 Staff note that central government intends to consult soon on a National Environmental Standard (NES) on papakāinga. The NES will introduce a nationally consistent definition for papakāinga development. For now, the proposed remissions in the DC Policy will apply to papakāinga using the current TRMP definition, although the Council has discretion to consider other factors. We will look to align with the NES definition in the next review of the Policy. The intention is that the remissions will apply to papakāinga developments that have been permitted or consented under national and district planning rules (and subject to the other remission criteria and considerations in the Policy).

5.15 Overall, staff consider that the proposed changes strike a balance between supporting the principles set out in the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, to reduce the barriers to development, and supporting the LGA principles of fairness and equity for development contributions on different types of developments.

Other Minor Amendments

5.16 Submitter 34809 expressed support for the change to clarify which version of the Policy applies when a consent is varied. They also suggested changes to the Policy in terms of the timing for payments (to be after the relevant consent/authorisation is exercised) and refunds (to be paid immediately if the consent is surrendered).

Staff advice

5.16.1 Section 198 of the LGA states the Council may require a development contribution when a resource or building consent is granted. Table 4 of the current Policy specifies the timing of invoices for each type of consent/authorisation. Invoices for development contributions for subdivision resource consents are not issued until the time of a section 224 application, when any necessary physical works have usually been completed in exercising the consent. Invoices for building consents and land use resource consents are issued at the time the consent is granted. The Council previously tried timing the payment of building consent development contributions to be closer to the issuing of Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) but found this process was administratively complex and risked missing some consents. Clauses 76-79 of the Policy provide options for postponing the payment of development contributions.

5.16.2 The Council can change its payment terms, but this change will need to be made as part of a subsequent review as it is out of scope for the changes we have consulted on in this review.

5.16.3 Clause 75 of the current Policy already notes that Section 209 of the LGA states the circumstances where development contributions will be refunded, or land returned.

Timing and Need for 2025 Review

5.17 Several submitters questioned the need and timing of the 2025 review.

Staff advice

5.17.1 Following consultation on the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034, the Council concluded that there were matters raised that warranted further engagement and resolved to conduct a further review of the Policy in 2025. This review gives effect to that.

5.17.2 On 20 March 2025, the Council approved the Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034 (2025 Review) for consultation. The consultation has complied with the LGA, using a consultation process that gives effect to the requirements of section 82.

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

6.1 The proposed change to limit the criteria for the stormwater detention discount is likely to have a favourable impact on revenue from Development Contributions. This is estimated to amount to at least $400,000 a year in extra revenue, assuming approximately 80 new lots/dwellings per year in the Waimea catchment would have got a 25% discount and 15 new lots/dwellings in the Motueka catchment.

6.2 The proposed change to the remissions for papakāinga developments could potentially reduce the revenue from Development Contributions but is not expected to be a significant amount on an annual basis.

6.3 These changes have not been incorporated in the 2025/2026 Annual Plan financial information. Staff recommend investigating changes to the Development Contributions model, when it is updated as part of the 2027 Long Term Plan, to account for these discounts and remissions when modelling development contributions charges and revenue.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Staff recommendation Progress with the proposed changes to the policy and not make any amendments in response to submissions. Staff will prepare the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034 (2025 Review) for approval on 25 June 2025.	Consultation on the Policy has been undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, and the community’s views were considered in the decision-making. The new Policy can have effect from 1 July 2025.	This option does not allow the Council to request further information on the Policy changes. Some submitters may be aggrieved that their views have not be reflected in the final policy.
2.	Progress with the proposed changes to the policy with amendments in response to submissions. Staff will prepare the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034 (2025 Review) for approval on 25 June 2025, including amendments.	Consultation on the Policy has been undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, and the community’s views were considered in the decision-making. The new Policy can have effect from 1 July 2025. The other advantages with this option will depend on the amendments proposed.	The public will not have an opportunity to be consulted on any further changes made at this meeting. If the changes are major or out of the scope of the changes consulted on, this may breach the decision-making obligations of the LGA. The other disadvantages with this option will depend on the amendments proposed.
3.	Seek further information from staff and/or carry out additional consultation, which may result in further changes to the Policy.	Enables the Council to request more information on other changes.	If substantive changes are made, the Policy will require further public consultation. This would mean the Final Policy would not be adopted prior to the new financial year, and we would need to continue providing the stormwater detention discount, resulting in a significant funding reduction until the next Policy review.
4.	Make no changes to the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2024-2034.	This would satisfy the requests of some submitters who opposed changes to the Policy.	This could damage the Council’s relationship with iwi as we made a commitment to review the remissions for development on Māori land this year. Stormwater detention discount would still apply, resulting in a significant funding reduction until the next Policy review.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 Section 106(6) of the LGA requires the Policy to be reviewed at least once every three years using a consultation process that gives effect to the requirements of section 82. Staff consider that we have meet this obligation, having:

· consulted using a process similar to the Special Consultative Procedure, making the consultation material as widely available as is reasonably practicable and providing an opportunity for persons to present their views to the Council; and

· notified parties we think have an interest in the matters consulted on.

8.2 Section 201 of the LGA outlines the matters which must be included in the Policy, including the conditions and criteria (if any) that will apply in relation to the remission of development contributions.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 The changes to remissions for developments on Māori land are partly in response to submissions from Iwi that were received during consultation on the Policy in 2024.

9.2 The review and draft changes have been communicated to Iwi Trusts at engagement hui in September and October 2024 and by emails sent in October 2024, January 2025, and during the consultation period.

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

10.1 At the Council meeting on 20 March 2025, the decisions on the Policy as a whole were considered to be of low/moderate significance.

10.2 Engagement was aligned with the consultation on the Schedule of Fees and Charges which used a Special Consultative Procedure. The consultation material was made as widely available as is reasonably practicable and an opportunity was provided for persons to present their views to the Council.

10.3 The decisions in this report are whether to proceed with or amend the proposed changes to the Policy, as consulted on. These decisions are considered to be of low/moderate significance overall.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low/moderate	The removal of stormwater detention discounts is expected to be of high interest to the development community. The remission for papakāinga developments is expected to be of high interest to owners of land in collective Māori ownership and Iwi.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low/moderate	The retention of stormwater detention discounts for developments in the Richmond Intensive Development Area is expected to incentivise infill development, improving housing supply and housing choice. The remission for papakāinga developments will facilitate the development of papakāinga on Māori land that has a positive impact on the social and cultural wellbeing of residents.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The Policy is reviewed at least every three years.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low
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?	Low	The proposed change will have a minor or positive impact on the Councils finances.
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

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 The consultation material was communicated in the usual Council channels (Shape Tasman, Newsline, social media) as well as in newsletters to the development and building sector. Emails were sent directly to developers, and stormwater and planning consultants.

11.2 Thirteen submissions were received, and these have been published on our website. All submitters had the opportunity to speak to their submission at the hearing which was held on 16 May 2025.

11.3 The adopted Policy will be published on the Council’s website and publicised via Newsline.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If the changes to the Policy are not approved, the changes will be delayed until the next review in 2026/2027, as part of developing the Long Term Plan 2027-2037.

12.2 The delay would have a financial risk as more developments will continue to be eligible for the stormwater detention discount.

12.3 There is a reputational risk if no changes are made, as it may seem the review and consultation were a waste of Council resources.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The proposed change to remove the stormwater detention discount has considered the future impacts on the Council’s stormwater networks from a changing climate. The proposed change aims to ensure more funding is available for adequate investment in resilient stormwater networks for future development.

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

14.1 The proposed change to keep the stormwater detention only for developments in the Richmond Intensive Development Area recognises the Council’s strategic goal of intensification in Tasman’s existing main centres, according to the Future Development Strategy 2022-2052.

14.2 Plan Change 81 of the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) is likely to change the areas zoned for intensification and for papakāinga. The Policy reflects the current TRMP and will need to be reviewed once Plan Change 81 has legal effect.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The 2025 review of the Policy has identified two notable changes, which relate to the criteria for stormwater detention discounts and the remissions for developments on Māori land, as well as several minor administrative amendments. Overall, these changes are expected to have a favourable impact on the Council’s finances while also achieving a positive impact on housing choice by incentivising intensification and papakāinga.

15.2 Public consultation on the 2025 Review of the Policy was open from 24 March to 28 April 2025. A total of 13 submissions were received. There were no late submissions.

15.3 The majority of submitters gave feedback on the two notable changes.

15.4 Staff have considered public feedback and recommend proceeding with the proposed changes.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Staff will prepare the policy for adoption on 25 June 2025, including any amendments sought by the Council. The Policy will come into effect from 1 July 2025.

16.2 There are no changes proposed to the Development Contribution charges, which were set on 1 July 2024 and were updated to reflect the capital costs from the infrastructure programme in Tasman’s 10-Year Plan 2024-2034. However, these charges will be adjusted for inflation from 1 July 2025.

16.3 The adopted Policy and inflation-adjusted charges will be published on the Council’s website and publicised via Newsline. The adopted Policy and inflation-adjusted charges will be published on the Council’s website and publicised via Newsline and newsletters to the development and building sector. Staff will also email all submitters with the outcomes of the Council’s decisions, and will update developers and stormwater and planning consultants.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 27 May 2025

7.2 Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 - Deliberations

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	27 May 2025
Report Author:	Emily Garland, Graduate Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Alan Bywater, Team Leader - Community Policy; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN25-05-22

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

1.1 The purpose of the report is to assist the Council in deliberating on the feedback received during public consultation on the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 (the Schedule).

1.2 This report is also to enable the Council to make decisions on the Schedule.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Public consultation on the Schedule was open from 24 March to 28 April 2025. A total of 63 submissions were received by the closing date. There was one late submission received on 29 April 2025.

2.2 At the public hearing on 16 May 2025, 13 submitters verbally presented their submissions on the Schedule to the Council.

2.3 In this report, staff summarise the feedback received and provide advice on specific issues raised by submitters.

2.4 Overall, submitters were concerned about the general increase of 10%, giving feedback that the increase exceeds inflation, lacks justification, and places undue strain on households and businesses.

2.5 Almost three-quarters of submitters provided feedback on the proposed increases to dog registration fees. The majority opposed the increase, stating it was unjustified and offered no additional benefit to dog owners.

2.6 Several submitters opposed the proposed increases to waste disposal and recycling fees, raising concerns about affordability and the risk of increased illegal dumping.

2.7 Six submitters opposed the proposed Maritime fees, particularly to mooring licences in the Māpua area, citing poor justification, lack of consultation, and concerns about excessive costs and bureaucracy.

2.8 Submitters gave feedback to other fee areas including Aerodrome fees and the new environmental incident inspection charge. These are detailed, along with other fee areas that received feedback, in the table in section 5.4 of this report.

2.9 Staff have considered the feedback received through submissions and have made recommendations concerning changes to the Draft Schedule.

2.10 Staff recommend making changes to the:

· Waste disposal charges in response to the feedback received through submissions. Staff advice and recommended changes are detailed in Attachment 2. The recommended change to the mixed refuse fees at Refuse Recycling Centres will require a 0.43% increase in rates revenue. This change is recommended to reverse revenue losses at the Richmond and Māriri Resource Recovery Centres and avoid increased instances of illegal dumping.

· The annual monitoring and administration fee for Mooring Licences under the Maritime section in response to submissions and to align the fee with the annual monitoring charge for moorings under the coastal permit process.

· Removal of the road stopping fee under the Community Infrastructure section as this fee is already charged in the Property Services section of the Schedule.

· Description of the property enquiry file fee as property files are not provided through USB for security reasons.

· Gravel and Shingle Extraction fees description, changing the mass to volume conversion from 1.8 tonne = 1 m³ to 2.0 tonne = 1 m³ as that is the value used when invoicing contractors.

2.11 Water supply charges to Nelson City Council and the Nelson Industrial Water Supply Area are calculated from proposed rates in the Annual Plan process. Interested and affected parties are being consulted and feedback will be available during the Annual Plan 2025/2026 deliberations.

2.12 Staff will prepare the final Schedule for adoption at the Council meeting on 25 June 2025.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 - Deliberations report,
RCN25-05-22; and

2. notes the submissions made on the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026; and

Waste Management Fees

3. notes that resolutions 5. to 9. below will require an increase in rates revenue of approximately 0.43%; and

4. notes that resolutions 5. to 9. will result in a portion of Waste Management being funded from rates, which is contrary to the Revenue and Financing Policy; and

5. agrees to reduce the weight-based charge for mixed refuse at Refuse Recycling Centres from the proposed $425.50/tonne to $404.80/tonne; and

6. agrees to reduce the volume-based charge for mixed refuse from $85.00/m³ to $80.50/m³; and

7. agrees to reduce the mixed refuse ‘60 litre bag’ from $4.30 to $4.10; and

8. agrees to reduce the light wastes surcharge for mixed refuse from $353/m³ to $334.65/m³; and

9. agrees to reduce the minimum domestic weighbridge transaction for mixed refuse from $7.70/20kg to $4.10/10kg; and

10. in accordance with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Council:

· agrees that in adopting resolutions 5. to 9. it is acting inconsistently with the Revenue and Financing Policy by partially funding waste disposal through rates to reduce the increase for users; and

· agrees that the reason for this inconsistency is to reduce the risk of more waste being diverted from resource recovery centres directly to York Landfill and instances of illegal dumping; and

· indicates its intention to consider amending the Revenue and Financing Policy with regards Waste Management as part of its Long Term Plan 2027-2037 process; and

11. agrees to reduce the minimum domestic greenwaste charge from $5.50 to $2.20 and specify in the fee description that this is for increments of 10kg; and

12. agrees to reduce the charges for mixed recycling and for clean corrugated cardboard from $359.95/tonne to $300.00/tonne; and

13. agrees to increase the fee for colour sorted glass recycling from $25.30/tonne to $85.00 per tonne; and

14. agrees to increase the Tasman District Council sale price of Kerbside Collection Rubbish bags from $6.40 to $6.50 for big bags (60 litres); and

15. agrees to retain the annual fee for additional kerbside recycling services at the proposed $156 per annum to account for the cost of delivery and invoicing; and

16. agrees to amend the delivery and collection fee to now be a collection fee (as presented in the Waste Management table in Attachment 2 to this report), as the delivery cost has been accounted for in the annual fee for additional kerbside recycling services; and

17. agrees to amend the ‘Fee to recover unacceptable and undeclared waste’ to ‘Fee to recover unacceptable and undeclared materials’; and

18. agrees to amend the heading for greenwaste from ‘Greenwaste (where accepted)’ to ‘Greenwaste (not accepted at Richmond)’; and

19. notes staff intend to review waste disposal charges in November 2025 and that the Chief Executive Officer has the delegation to amend these charges, as set out in S3.11 of the Council’s Delegation Register; and

Other Fee Areas

20. confirms the Dog Control fees as listed in the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

21. agrees to reduce the annual monitoring and administration fee for mooring licences from the proposed $226.00 to $153.00, in line with the annual charge for moorings under coastal permits; and

22. confirms the Building Assurance travel fee as listed in the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

23. confirms the Aerodrome fees as listed in the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

24. confirms the proposed environmental incident inspection charge as listed in the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

25. confirms the property file fees as listed in the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

26. confirms the official information requests fee (LGOIMA) as listed in the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

27. confirms the Cemetery fees as listed in the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

28. notes that Water Supply charges to Nelson City Council and the Nelson Industrial Supply Area are being consulted on separately from this process and considered as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 process; and

29. notes that the property information file fee description will be revised to reflect that files are shared via ShareFile links, not USB; and

30. notes that the Gravel and Shingle Extraction fees description will be revised to change the mass-to-volume conversion from 1.8 tonne = 1 m³ to 2.0 tonne = 1 m³; and

31. notes the removal of the road stopping fee under the Community Infrastructure section as this fee is duplicated in the Property Services section of the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

32. notes the correct road stopping fee is $825 as this better reflects the initial administrative costs of considering road stopping applications; and.

33. subject to resolutions 3. to 32. confirms the remaining fees in the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges published for consultation (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

34. adopts the Dog Control fees set out in the Draft Schedule (Attachment 1 to the agenda report), to allow for public notification in the month before the fees take effect, in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Council may set fees and charges to recover the costs associated with providing its services. Staff review these fees and charges annually and recommend changes, additions, or deletions through the Schedule of Fees and Charges.

4.2 This year, the Council proposed a 10% increase to most fees and charges. This increase accounts for the significant rising costs of delivering Council services and aligns with the proposed rates revenue increase of 10.2% (including growth), for 2025/2026. The increase helps maintain the ratio of funding from fees and charges, in line with the Revenue and Financing Policy. Increasing fees and charges reduces the impact of service cost increases on ratepayers but increases the costs to users of Council services.

4.3 Staff prepared a Statement of Proposal for the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026, seeking Council approval to consult the public. The proposal sets out the following changes, outside of the standard 10% increase:

4.3.1 Some fees are increasing above the 10% increase to adequately recover service costs from users, such as dog registration charges, cemetery interment charges, and the LGOIMA half hourly rate.

4.3.2 Some fees are increasing by less than 10% as the standard increase was not necessary in order to sufficiently recover costs, including Aerodrome fees, hourly charge-out rates for Resource Management fees, and some Waste Management fees.

4.3.3 To improve cost recovery from users, several new charges are proposed. These include a Building Assurance travel fee for Lakes-Murchison and Golden Bay, a working dog registration fee, and a LIM cancellation fee.

4.3.4 Some fees are proposed to remain unchanged from last year’s Schedule, as they are already recovering costs. These include Gravel and Shingle Extraction fees (except for monitoring rates), Port Tarakohe penalty charges, and most Maritime fees.

4.4 At its meeting on 20 March 2025, the Council adopted the Statement of Proposal for the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 (Attachment 1) and to publicly consult on the Schedule.

4.5 The consultation was open from 24 March to 28 April 2025. Copies of the Schedule were made publicly available on Shape Tasman and at the Council’s libraries and offices. Media releases were made via social media and Newsline. Managers were asked to notify users of their service areas likely to be affected of the consultation. Notice of the consultation was also included in the April Resource Consents and Building Assurance newsletters.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Schedule Of Fees and Charges 2025/2026.

5.1 There were 64 submissions received to the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026, including one late submission. The entirety of submissions has been provided to the Mayor and Councillors on LG Hub and are also available for viewing by the public on the Council’s website. For comparison, we received 132 submissions in 2024/2025 (in conjunction with Tasman’s 10-Year Plan), 20 submissions in 2023/2024 and 15 submissions in 2022/2023.

5.2 Thirteen people spoke to their submission at the public hearing on 16 May 2025.

5.3 The main topics, issues, and concerns of submitters were:

Theme/Specific Mention	Number of submissions
Disagree with the 10% increase to most fees	16
Fees should only be increased by inflation/CPI	7
The Council should look for internal efficiencies	13
Emphasis on the financial climate/cost of living crisis	12
Oppose the dog registration increase	39
The removal of bins and dog bags	24
Dog registration fees provide nothing/ask what they’re for	12
More dog education is needed	10
Want discounts for certain dog owners	4
Oppose the waste fees increases	7
Worry of increased fly-tipping	6
Pro user-pays	6
Oppose the Maritime fees	6

5.4 The following table summarises the main points of feedback made by submitters with associated staff advice and recommendations.

Key Submission Points	Staff Comment and Recommendation
General Fee Increases
Sixteen (16) submissions specifically opposed the proposed 10% increase in fees and charges. Submitters argued the increase exceeds inflation, lacks adequate justification, and unfairly burdens households and businesses already facing economic pressure. Many call for the Council to prioritise cost savings and internal efficiencies, particularly in staffing and operations, before raising charges. The “user pays” rationale is widely questioned, with concerns the increases fund poorly managed or unnecessary projects. Overall, submitters called for fee increases to be limited to inflation and for greater transparency, accountability, and community engagement from the Council.	Staff acknowledge the concerns raised by submitters about the proposed 10% increase in fees and charges. While the general increase is 10%, this varies in some cases for specific reasons. The proposed increases align with the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy and Activity Management Plans, which sets the level of funding to be sourced from user fees versus rates for each activity. For example, the building activity is intended to be funded 80–100% through user fees, with the remaining 0–20% from rates. These funding bands are in place across all Council activities and were adopted through prior Council decisions. The cost base for many services has grown more than inflation due to additional costs, such as increased depreciation with more of these costs being funded from revenue, the new Water Services Levy, and sampling obligations imposed by central government. To maintain the intended revenue ratios and reduce pressure on rates, an increase above the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for most fees is necessary. Without the 10% adjustment to fees, the rates revenue increase for 2025/2026 would need to be higher to make up the shortfall, undermining the user-pays principle. While staff continue to seek internal efficiencies and cost savings, many of the services funded by fees are subject to externally driven and rising costs. It is also important to note that CPI is not the most appropriate cost inflation adjustor for local government. The CPI reflects household goods rather than the cost pressures faced by councils (milk and bread versus oil and earthworks). Instead, the Council uses the Local Government Cost Index developed by BERL (Business and Economic Research Ltd), which more accurately reflects inflation in the sector. The Statement of Proposal for the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 was drafted to be accessible and easily understood. This meant that detailed explanations for each individual fee could not be provided. With hundreds of fees across numerous activities, it is not feasible to present a full justification for every line item. Under current legislation, formal public consultation is not required for the majority of fee changes. However, we remain committed to transparency and to providing the opportunity for community feedback on matters that affect them. Further refinements to how fees are communicated will be considered as part of ongoing improvement work. Staff recommend proceeding with the general 10% increase, noting that this increase is not universal and takes pressure off rates.
Dog Registration Fees
Forty-one (41) submitters gave feedback on the proposed dog registration fee increases. Most opposed the change, saying it was unjustified, offered no clear benefits, and meant responsible owners were subsidising irresponsible ones. Concerns were raised that higher fees could lead to more unregistered dogs, and that older residents might struggle to afford registration for their companions. About a quarter of submitters wanted more focus on educating visitors about responsible dog ownership, especially in peak season. Supporters of the increase argued that fees should reflect the real cost of dog control and help fund safety and education efforts. Many also criticised the planned removal of rubbish bins and dog waste bag dispensers, saying these were the only visible benefits of registration and their removal would lead to more mess. Overall, submitters felt the increases, and the shift to in-house services, were not well explained.	Staff proposed the second step of an increase in dog registration fees to ensure the service is fully funded. Fees have previously been kept low, but this does not cover the costs of delivering dog control services, which include: - Enforcement - Responding to complaints - Maintaining the National Dog Database - Managing public safety - Operating the animal shelter - Rehoming dogs - Delivering education initiatives After the previous contract ended in September 2024, the Council temporarily brought additional elements of the dog control service in-house pending a review. The review found that the comprehensive in-house model provides better service but at a higher cost than the former contract. However, the contractor had made it clear that maintaining a service at the price of the former contract was not financially viable. Providing services in-house enables a more proactive approach to compliance. It also offers greater flexibility in responding to legislative or regulatory changes, without the limitations of a contract. Full in-house delivery gives the Council more control over staff training, performance, and accountability, helping to ensure the service aligns with our policies and standards. In March 2025, the Council resolved to continue with in-house delivery. The increased costs of providing the service need to be funded. The urban dog registration fee increased by only $3 between 2011 and 2023. A larger increase is now needed to keep the service as user-pays, in line with the Public Health & Safety Activity Management Plan. Staff acknowledge the particular service needs in different areas, which is why they have proposed a new fee category for working dogs. Some submitters raised concerns about the removal of dog waste bins and bag dispensers. Staff note that the budget for these does not come from dog registration fees but from the Reserves budget, which is funded through rates. Under Section 9 of the Dog Control Act 1996, revenue from registration fees can only be used for dog control activities and not for general services like rubbish collection in reserves. The Council rescinded the decision to remove the bins and dispensers on 8 May 2025. Further information on options to change dog control fees in response to submissions is contained in Section 6 of this report. Staff recommend proceeding with the proposed increases to dog registration fees.
Working Dog Fee
Six submitters mentioned the new working dog registration fee. Many felt that working dogs, especially farm dogs, receive little or no service from the Council and therefore should not be subject to high registration fees. Several submitters argue that the fees are unfair, some suggested that farm dog owners were subsidising urban dogs, while one submitter believes all dog owners should pay the same. The majority support reduced fees for working dogs, with suggestions including halving the standard fee and giving owners of multiple dogs a discount or capping the total charge.	The Working Dog fee is a newly proposed category within the schedule of fees and charges. This new fee, and the lower rate compared to the urban and rural dog categories, recognises the lower level of service typically required by working dogs. In previous years those animals in the new working dog category would have been categorised as rural or urban dogs and charged at a comparatively higher level. While the proposed fee is lower than the other categories, it is set to recover the cost of providing and maintaining core dog control services, which must be available to all dog owners when needed. The fee equitably balances the lower service demand with the need for ongoing service availability and financial sustainability. Staff recommend proceeding with the new working dog fee at the proposed rate.
Waste Fees
Several submitters opposed the proposed increases to waste disposal and recycling fees, raising concerns about affordability and the risk of increased illegal dumping. They questioned the size of the increases, especially where they exceed the general 10% rise, and noted inconsistencies between transfer station and landfill fees. Some submitters also suggested the changes could discourage recycling and called for clearer justification and more competitive pricing.	The staff response to waste fee submissions is detailed in Attachment 2. In response to submissions, staff recommend reducing the level of increase for mixed refuse fees from 18% to 12%. This change is recommended due to the significant reduction in tonnage compared to forecasted in Tasman’s 10-Year Plan 2024-2034. The recommended changes are intended to reduce the quantity of waste being diverted from resource recovery centres to landfills and instances of illegal dumping. Other changes have been recommended and are outlined in Attachment 2.
Maritime Fees
Six submitters opposed the proposed Maritime fees, particularly the mooring licences in the Māpua area. They see the fees as excessive and poorly justified, raising concerns about lack of consultation, increased bureaucracy, and unclear benefits. Some questioned whether more cost-effective service options had been considered, such as community management.	The staff response to Maritime fee submissions is detailed in Attachment 3. In response to submissions, staff recommend reducing the annual monitoring and administration fee from the proposed $226 (which would have been an increase from $206 in the current financial year), to $153. This aligns the fee with the annual charge for Coastal Permits, reflecting the original intent of the system to cost less than a Coastal Permit. This change reduces the long-term cost burden to mooring licence holders, while maintaining administrative cost recovery.
Building Assurance – Travel Fee
Submissions 34719 and 34832 opposed the proposed $100 travel fee for building inspection visits to Golden Bay and Lakes-Murchison, arguing it is unfair and inconsistent with how services are charged in other parts of the district. They felt all residents should be treated equally and not face extra costs based on location.	The $100 travel fee covers the added cost of providing inspection services in remote areas like Golden Bay and Lakes-Murchison. The Council could consider funding these travel costs from general rates but this contradicts the general user pays approach funding building assurance and could be inconsistent with the funding ratios in the Revenue and Financing Policy and Activity Management Plan. Alternatively, the Council could increase the fee for all building consents to cover the anticipated travel costs. However, the number of building consents (across the District) and the number in the areas where the travel costs apply, as well as the number of inspections required across the year, are very variable. As a result, being able to accurately set fees for all building consents to include the travel costs in these areas would be very hard to do. Due to low inspection demand, these areas don’t have dedicated staff. Instead, inspectors travel from Motueka (for Golden Bay) and Richmond (for Lakes-Murchison). Currently we service Lakes Murchison two days per week and Golden Bay three days per week. After reviewing options, a fixed fee to cover travel costs to remote areas was found to be the fairest and most transparent approach. This aligns with Section 281B of the Building Act 2004, which supports fee adjustments to meet actual service costs. The fee covers travel from the nearest staffed service centre to the ward’s service centre. Travel within the ward is already included in the standard inspection fee. Remote inspection tools are being explored and may reduce or remove the need for this fee for some inspections in future. Staff recommend proceeding with this new fee.
Aerodrome Fees
Submitters 34721 and 34831 opposed parts of the proposed fee changes for the Motueka and Tākaka aerodromes. One submitter argued that fee increases at Motueka are unjustified, noting increased revenue from other sources, and calls for the fees to be reduced instead. The other submission was concerned with the clause allowing fees to be varied under “special circumstances,” saying it lacks transparency and could lead to unfair decisions.	The operational costs of maintaining and managing the aerodromes continue to rise. Investments such as the NZ Post building are undertaken on commercial terms and are not funded through landing fees. The revenue from this sort of development does not offset the operational costs that landing fees are intended to recover. While the Motueka aerodrome is user-pays, the Tākaka aerodrome has been funded 72% by rates in 2024/2025. All hangars are based upon commercial terms and therefore any associated income, interest and any other costs are not considered part of the aeronautical model used to set landing fees. The following costs are included in the aeronautical model used to set landing fees: - Legal fees - Signage - Health and Safety inspections - Runway and ground repairs and maintenance - Fencing maintenance - Wildlife management - CAA compliance – this involves current and constantly changing regulations and obligations (AIP, meetings, emergency exercises, signage etc.) - Notice to Aviator (NOTAM) issuance and monitoring - Staff management inclusive of planning and operations Staff obtained an independent review of landing fees in November 2024 (Attachment 4). The review found that the average landing fee for a small aircraft around the country is $16.38. Currently, very few smaller aerodromes in New Zealand achieve complete cost recovery due to the high costs of compliance. Blenheim has achieved this and its current charges are $40.29 per landing for a small aircraft. Regarding notes in the Aerodrome schedule, the ability to vary fees under special circumstances is considered necessary to allow flexibility during the transition to the new fee structure. This discretion enables the Council to respond appropriately to individual cases without undermining the overall framework. Staff recommend proceeding with the proposed fee increases as consulted.
Environmental Assurance – Environmental Incident Inspection Charge
Submitters 34831 and 34832 oppose the proposed Environmental Incident Inspection Charge. They argue it is not legally supported under section 36 of the Resource Management Act and raises concerns about fairness, efficiency, and due process. Both suggest that environmental enforcement is a public good and that costs for isolated or unavoidable breaches should not be imposed on consent holders.	This charge recovers costs incurred when the Council investigates environmental incidents not directly related to a resource consent. It is made under section 150 of the Local Government Act 2002, not section 36 of the RMA. These inspections are carried out under section 332 of the RMA to assess compliance, and the charge aligns with user-pays and polluter-pays principles, ensuring that costs are not unfairly passed to the wider community. Charges are applied when it is found, following an investigation, that a breach has occurred. The Council will apply this fee in line with its enforcement guidelines and will consider the circumstances of each incident, including emergencies or unavoidable events. Proposed amendments to the RMA (Clause 10 of the Consenting and Other System Changes Amendment Bill) are expected to further support this cost recovery approach. Some other councils across New Zealand charge for this including Wellington Regional Council and Southland Regional Council. Staff recommend confirming this new fee.
Property Information – Property Enquiries
Submitter 34722 commented on the Property Information fee for property files, which is increasing by 10% from $55 to $59 as excessive, citing the difference in costs between the three councils of Te Tauihu. Additionally, they request justification for the 10% increase in the per annum charge to companies for unlimited access to property files.	Staff acknowledge the concern regarding the increase in the Property Information fee, and the comparison with other councils in Te Tauihu. The 10% increase aligns with a standard adjustment applied across various Council fees and reflects rising costs, particularly staff time involved in processing property file requests. Currently, the property file process is only partially automated. Staff are investigating ways to improve efficiency which may reduce cost increase pressure in the future and could be reflected in future charges. Staff recommend continuing with the proposed 10% increase.
Corporate – Official Information Requests (LGOIMA)
Submission 34831 opposed the increase in the LGOIMA half hour charge from $50 to $60. They argue that the increase lacks justification and goes against the Ministry of Justice guidance of $38 per half hour. They state that the fee disproportionately affects individuals and non-profits, who rely on official information to monitor and engage with Council actions. The submitter also asks for fee reductions and exemptions for community organisations.	In the last few years, the numbers of formal LGOIMAs received by Council has increased from 512 in 2023 to 730 in 2024. This increased number is putting pressure on the organisation to respond to large requests. Neither the current fee nor proposed fee come close to recovering the cost of these requests. The Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines have not been updated since 2002 and the staff’s view is that they no longer reflect the reasonable cost of responding to LGOIMAs. This increased amount is broadly in line with the approach taken by other councils including Nelson City Council (that has just adopted $50 per half hour for 2025/2026) and Marlborough District Council (charging $50 per half hour for 2024/2025). No consideration is given to a separate rate for community organisations. The focus for staff when considering whether to charge for a LGOIMA request is on the public value of the request, as opposed to whether the request is on behalf of a community organisation. The costs of responding to LGOIMA requests are the same whatever the type of organisation requesting the information. Staff recommend confirming the proposed fee level.
Cemetery Fees
Submission 34831 opposed the increase to adult burial interment fees, ash interment fees, and weekend and late additional charges, stating that they were unjustified.	The proposed increases to interment fees reflect rising interment costs from our contractors. These adjustments are intended to ensure that the individuals using the service cover the associated costs, rather than these being subsidised by the general ratepayer. Staff recommend confirming the proposed fee level.
Fees Increasing by more than 10%
Submission 34831 specifically identified several fees proposed to increase by more than 10%. The submission stated that these increases were not justified and noted that some of the fees exceeding 10% were not mentioned in the Statement of Proposal.	These fees have been increased to ensure the costs of providing specific services are fairly recovered from users, rather than being subsidised by general ratepayers. Because the cost components of each fee vary significantly, full breakdowns have not been provided. Instead, brief explanations are included to give context and to help users understand the purpose of each fee—particularly those in specialised areas that are not relevant to most Tasman residents. Some fees have increased by more than 10% due to rounding for administrative efficiency. For example, stock impounding fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

Water Supply Charges

5.5 Water Supply Charges to Nelson City Council and the Nelson Industrial Water Supply Area are calculated based on the income required from rates and water supply charges to ensure that all water supply users pay equally.

5.6 Consultation is taking place through direct contact to affected parties. This feedback will be presented to the Council during the deliberations of the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

5.7 Once feedback has been considered, these fees will be included into the Final Schedule for adoption on 25 June 2025.

Recommended Corrections to the Schedule

5.8 Staff recommend updating the property information file fee description to reflect that files are shared via ShareFile links, not USB, due to security reasons.

5.9 Staff recommend updating the Gravel and Shingle Extraction fees description to change the mass-to-volume conversion from 1.8 tonne = 1 m³ to 2.0 tonne = 1 m³ as that is the value used in practice and 1.8 tonne = 1 m³ is likely too low on average and would unintentionally levy higher costs on extractors.

5.10 Staff recommend the removal of the road stopping fee under the Community Infrastructure section as this fee is duplicated in the Property Services section of the Schedule. The correct fee is the proposed $825 fee as this better reflects the initial administrative costs of considering road stopping applications, as compared to the $434 fee under Community Infrastructure.

6. Dog Control Fees

Options for Dog Registration Fees

6.1 Due to the large increase in dog registration fees and the quantity of submitters opposing the increases, options for elected members have been provided below. Staff recommend retaining the fees in the Draft Schedule (Option 1).

	Proposed fees	Change from 2024/2025 fee	Deficit / additional funding from rates
Option 1 (as consulted)	Urban: $90 Rural: $70 Working: $50	Increase of $25 38% increase to urban 56% increase to rural	$0.00
Option 2	Urban: $85 Rural: $65 Working: $45	Increase of $20 31% increase to urban 44% increase to rural	$54,113.00
Option 3	Urban: $80 Rural: $60 Working: $40	Increase of $15 23% increase to urban 33% increase to rural	$108,226.00
Option 4	Urban: $75 Rural: $55 Working: $35	Increase of $10 15% increase to urban 22% increase to rural	$162,339.00

6.2 Note that the proposed registration fees have been calculated to balance the dog control account. Any decrease from the proposed registration fees will result in a deficit in revenue and will need to be funded from rates. Funding dog control from rates is contrary to what is stated in the Public Health and Safety Activity Management Plan, which says that the cost of dog control services will be funded by dog registration fees and recoveries from offending owners.

6.3 Any option to stage the increase in dog control fees over several years will result in a deficit in this closed account. This deficit would either need to be subsidised by rates or financed by increased borrowing, with the interest and repayments to be funded by increased rates or higher dog control fees in future years.

6.4 Any option to reduce dog registration fees for specific dog owners e.g. those over 65 years of age will result in either the dog registration fees to other dog owners increasing further or the reduction in revenue being funded by rates. We do not currently have all dog owners’ ages (as we have had no reason to collect this information). We would need to model the financial impact of reducing the dog registration fees for over 65’s and consult on that option after identifying the full range of costs and benefits. If elected members are of a mind to explore this option, the date of birth of dog owners could be collected during the next registration period to enable this option to be modelled for the 2026/2027 fees. We would also need to assess the likelihood of younger dog owners transferring ownership to over 65’s as a means of reducing registration fees for their dogs.

6.5 The Dog Control Act 1996 (s.37[6]) requires that the Council publicly notify the Dog Control fees fixed for the registration year, in a newspaper circulating in the District, at least once during the month preceding the start of every registration year.

6.6 In addition, pound fees are required to be adopted at least 14 days before the resolution comes into effect and be publicly notified in a newspaper circulating in the District.

6.7 To enable us to meet these notification requirements, this report includes a resolution to adopt the Dog Control fees at this meeting. The remainder of the schedule of fees and charges will be presented for adoption at the 25 June 2025 Council meeting.

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

7.1 The Revenue and Financing Policy states: “An activity should be funded by users or exacerbators if an individual or group of individuals directly receives the benefits of the activity or causes the action, and the costs of the activity can easily be attributed and charged to that individual or group of individuals”.

7.2 For each activity, the Revenue and Financing Policy sets, in ranges, the proportion of costs to be funded by rates, fees and charges, and other sources, expressed as a range.

7.3 This Schedule has been developed alongside the proposed rates revenue increase, which is scheduled for deliberation by the Council on 4 June 2025. The Council may amend the rates revenue requirement during the Annual Plan 2025/2026 deliberations.

7.4 If, following deliberations on the Annual Plan 2025/2026, the increase in the rates revenue varies from the proposed 8.8% (excluding growth), the proportions of funding from different sources are likely to remain consistent with the ranges in the Revenue and Financing Policy.

8. Options / Kōwhiringa

8.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the staff recommendations and accept the revised Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026, including any minor amendments made at this meeting.	Consultation on the Schedule has been undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, and the community’s views were considered in the staff recommendation. The new fees can be charged from 1 July 2025 onwards.	This option does not allow the Council to request further information on the fees and charges. The public will not have an opportunity to be consulted on any further changes to fees made at this meeting
2.	Decline the staff recommendations and accept the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 as consulted on.	The new fees can be charged from 1 July 2025 onwards. Fees can be charged at the same rates as consulted on.	This option does not allow the Council to request further information on the fees and charges. The public may feel that their feedback has been unacknowledged. This may result in a reputational risk.
3.	Decline the staff recommendations and Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 in order to receive further information and/or conduct further consultation.	Enables the Council to request more information on proposed fees and make changes to specific proposed charges before approving the same for further consultation. The public will receive another chance to give feedback on the proposed Schedule before it is adopted.	If substantive changes are made, the Schedule (or specific parts of it) may require further public consultation. This further public consultation will require staff time and further input from the public. This would mean the Final Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 (or specific parts of it) could not be adopted prior to the new financial year, and we would need to continue charging the current 2023/2024 fees and charges until the consultation process is completed. This may result in a shortfall of income for some activities.

8.2 Option 1 is recommended.

9. Legal / Ngā ture

9.1 The Council can set fees and charges:

9.1.1 under section 12 of the Local Government Act (LGA), which is a global empowering provision that enables the Council to make decisions and undertake acts and activities in pursuit of its functions;

9.1.2 under section 150 of the LGA for certain functions provided for in bylaws or in enactments that do not already explicitly provide for fees to be charged;

9.1.3 under section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991;

9.1.4 under section 205 of the Food Act 2014;

9.1.5 under other government legislation as noted in the Draft Schedule.

9.2 The draft schedule outlines the legislation that the fee is made under.

9.3 If the Draft Schedule is not adopted prior to 1 July 2025, the Council may not be able to recover the expected costs for some services that are provided. The 2024/2025 charges would apply by default until the Council adopted a new Schedule for 2025/2026 or part thereof.

9.4 Section 37(6) of the Dog Control Act 1996 establishes the public notification requirements for Dog Control fees in general and section 68(2) establishes the public notification requirements for pound fees. The Dog Control Act 1996 (s.37[6]) requires that the Council publicly notify the Dog Control fees fixed for the registration year, in a newspaper circulating in the District, at least once during the month preceding the start of every registration year.

10. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

10.1 Iwi were notified of the consultation on changes to the Schedule via email, sent to the CEOs and Pou Taiao of our nine iwi partners. The email included a summary of the consultation, key submission dates, a link to submit via Shape Tasman, and the option to email a submission directly. The decision to send this email was guided by the advice of Council’s Kaihautū Hononga. No feedback was received.

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

11.1 At the Council meeting on 20 March 2025, the decision to consult was considered to be of low/medium level of significance.

11.2 The Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 has been consulted on through the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP). This is because fees set under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Food Control Act require an SCP. Subsequently, the Council resolved to consult on the entire Draft Schedule using an SCP, to ensure transparency and public participation.

11.3 The decisions in this report are whether to retain the majority of the Schedule as consulted on and make the changes recommended following consultation, retain the entire Schedule as consulted on, or decline the Draft Schedule until further information is provided and/or further consultation is undertaken.

11.4 The decisions in this report are considered to be of low/medium significance overall to most members of the public, while some fees and charges may have a high level of significance to specific people, for example, those residents on fixed incomes and who use services that the Council charges for.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	Public interest in the Schedule during the consultation period was lower than in the previous year (64 submissions compared to 132). However, there remains a moderate level of public interest in the Council’s financial position. This interest has grown following recent cost-saving measures implemented by the Council, including communications related to the Annual Plan 2025/2026 and the removal of rubbish bins and dog bag dispensers from reserves. The latter, in particular generated significant public engagement, especially in relation to the proposed increase in dog registration fees.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low-medium	The Schedule will have a minor impact on the economic wellbeing of the community through increased costs to specific users of Council services.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The Schedule is assessed annually, the Council can reconsider the decision as part of the same process in a year’s time, alongside the Long Term or Annual Plan process.
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?	Low	If fees are not increased to the levels recommended by staff it may result in service cuts, decreasing 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?	Medium	The decisions on the Schedule are part of the Council’s plan to fund its activities and services in the 2025/2026 year. If fees are not increased sufficiently to recover service costs, then more funding will be required from rates.
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

12. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

12.1 Copies of the Statement of Proposal for the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 were made publicly available on the Council’s website and hard copies at the Council’s libraries and offices from 24 March to 28 April 2025. Media releases have been made via social media, Shape Tasman, the Council website, and Newsline.

12.2 Budget holders were asked, where relevant, to contact stakeholders of changes to fees in their area of interest. This contact included information on ways to submit their feedback. Notice of the consultation was also included in the April Resource Consents and Building Assurance newsletters.

12.3 The adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 will be published on the Council’s website and publicised via Newsline.

13. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

13.1 Staff have planned the timing of public consultation and adoption of the Schedule to ensure that the Schedule can be operative from 1 July 2025.

13.2 If the Schedule is not adopted prior to 1 July 2025, the Council may not be able to recover the expected costs for some services that are provided. The 2024/2025 charges would apply by default until the Council adopted a new Schedule for 2025/2026. This may result in a shortfall in some fee areas or a higher proportion of rates funding these activities than as prescribed in the Revenue and Financing Policy.

13.3 There is a medium degree of reputational risk from the above 10% increase in dog registration fees. To mitigate this, staff recommend clear reasoning for the increase to be provided in the letter notifying dog owners of the increase.

13.4 Some of the proposed fee increases exceed 10%. If the Council decides not to adopt the recommended increases and service levels cannot be reduced, the activity may incur a cost deficit or require additional funding from rates. This additional reliance on rates may fall outside the funding ratio specified for the activity in the Revenue and Financing Policy, resulting in ratepayers subsidising services intended to be funded by users.

14. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

14.1 The Schedule attached to this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide’.

14.2 Some fees help incentivise behaviours that contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. recycling products instead of disposing them to landfills).

14.3 Staff are not aware of any fees that might detract from the goals of the Tasman Climate Response and Resilience Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2035.

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

15.1 Setting fees and charges aligns with the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy and shifts some of the costs of the Council’s services from ratepayers onto users of those services, where there are private benefits of the service to specific individuals.

15.2 The Council sets the Schedule annually, and the Chief Executive Officer has delegated authority to amend both the Waste Management and Commercial fees and charges during the year if required.

16. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

16.1 Cost increases being experienced by the Council have been substantially higher than anticipated in the LTP 2024-2034.

16.2 To maintain the balance of funding between rates and fees as indicated in the Revenue and Financing Policy and the Activity Management Plans, fee increases are required to be of a similar level to the increase in rates revenue in the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

16.3 While submissions have highlighted some concerns with this approach in general and in relation to specific fees, staff recommend progressing with the majority of proposed fees.

16.4 In response to submissions, staff recommend making changes to some of the proposed fees in the Waste Management and the Maritime fee areas. The changes proposed for mixed refuse fees at resource recovery centres will require a 0.43% increase in rates revenue. This change is recommended to reverse revenue losses at the Richmond and Māriri Resource Recovery Centres and reduce instances of illegal dumping.

16.5 Some other minor changes need to be made to the Schedule of Fees and Charges to improve its clarity.

16.6 To enable the Council to meet the notification requirements of the Dog Control Act 1996, this report includes a resolution to adopt the Dog Control fees at this meeting. The remainder of the Schedule will be presented for adoption at the 25 June 2025 Council meeting.

17. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

17.1 Staff will incorporate any agreed changes into a final Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026. The Council will be presented with this Schedule for adoption at its meeting on 25 June 2025.

17.2 The confirmed Dog Control Fees from this deliberations meeting will be publicly notified during June 2025.

17.3 Fees become effective from 1 July 2025.

17.4 Staff will respond to all submitters.

18. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Statement of Proposal - Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026	36
2.⇩	Waste Management Fees - Staff Response	91
3.⇩	Maritime Fees - Staff Response	101
4.⇩	Landing Movement Charge Comparisons 2024	106

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