Addendum Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Tasman District Council Agenda – 04 June 2025

7 Reports

7.1 Annual Plan 2025/2026 - Deliberations Report

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	4 June 2025
Report Author:	Alan Bywater, Team Leader - Community Policy; Amy Smith, Community Policy Advisor; Jane Murray, Transportation Planning Advisor; Michael Goldingham, Team Leader – Infrastructure Planning; Matthew McGlinchey, Financial Performance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager
Report Number:	RCN25-06-1

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to:

1.1.1 provide a summary of the submissions received on the Annual Plan 2025/2026;

1.1.2 provide the Mayor and Councillors with an opportunity to discuss and obtain advice from staff on the matters raised in the submissions;

1.1.3 make decisions on matters to be included in the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 At its meeting on 30 April 2025 the Council made a series of decisions on changes from the LTP 2024-2034 for 2025/2026.

2.2 The net outcome of these changes was a rates revenue increase of 8.8% (excluding growth) for 2025/26, and net debt will be $299m. This was an increase compared to the 7% planned in the LTP. As a result, Council agrees to consult on the Annual Plan 25/26.

2.3 At its meeting on 8 May 2025 the Council adopted a consultation document for a two-week period of public consultation between 12 and 25 May 2025.

2.4 There were 153 submissions received over the consultation period, including 31 from organisations and groups. Staff have prepared an overview of the submissions (Attachment 1) and all submissions can be accessed and viewed here: TDC Submissions.

2.5 Several changes are proposed as a result of submissions or further information becoming available. However, overall the rates increase has remained at 8.8% as it was when we went out for consultation. Changes have included;

2.5.1 Resource Recovery Centre (RCC) adjustment of $310,000 due to a reduction if fees being charged that will be offset by an increase in the distribution from the NTRLBU in 2025/2026.

2.5.2 Increase to Keep Motueka Beautiful funding $5,000 operating.

2.5.3 Decreases assumed revenue from proposed all day parking charges for 2025/2026 from $100,000 to $40,000 as meters will only be able to be installed and operational in February 2026.

2.5.4 Add capital expenditure of $200,000 for a Motueka Heritage Wharf Restoration Project.

2.5.5 Increased capital funding by $250,000 for the Richmond South (Section H) project in the Water Activity, to enable 17 hectares of residential land (enough for circa 250 homes) to be zoned by the end of 2026.

2.5.6 Change of phasing to the Dovedale water supply capital project. Decrease in capital spend on $1.5m in 2025/26.

2.5.7 Add $1m of capital funding for land purchases - the Māpua Master Plan.

2.5.8 Add $25,000 of operating costs to the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce noting that is offset by a corresponding decrease in the Nelson Tasman Business Trust (NTBT) due to their closure.

2.5.9 Increase the Kiwi Saver contribution from 3.0% to 3.5% from April 1, 2026.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Annual Plan 2025/2026 - Deliberations Report RCN25-06-1; and

2. notes the submissions made on the Annual Plan consultation document; and

3. agrees not to increase funding to the Motueka District Museum; and

4. approves funding of $5,000 from the Reserve Financial Contributions in 2025/2026 to Keep Motueka Beautiful for projects on the Council’s reserves; and

5. approves, provisionally, to increase the capital budget by $1M to allow for a possible opportunity for a land purchase to aid in the implementation of the Mapuā Masterplan subject to the upcoming Council decision on this matter; and

6. confirms the water charges for Nelson City Council and Industrial Users in paragraph 5.57 of the agenda report; and

7. notes that the water charges for Nelson City Council and Industrial Users will be incorporated into the Schedule of Fees and Charges 2025/2026 for adoption at the Council meeting on 25 June 2025; and

8. approves the allocation of up to $200,000 (depending on the funding shortfall) in capital expenditure for the Motueka Heritage Wharf Restoration Project in the 2025/2026 financial year; and

9. approves funding of $25,000 per annum plus adjustment for inflation from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2027 to the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce to provide business support and mentoring services to Tasman businesses; and

10. approves the increase in capital budget for Richmond South (Section H) water supply project by $250,000; and

11. approves the decrease (deferring) in capital budget for the Dovedale water supply new source and raw water pipeline from $1.97M to $0.5M for the 2025/26 Annual Plan; and

12. notes the increase to the employer Kiwi Saver contribution from 3.0% to 3.5% from April 1, 2026; and

13. confirms the introduction of paid parking for all day parking on off-street carparks in Richmond at the tariff’s proposed in consultation, but with a delayed start date of February 2026; and

14. agrees to decrease the assumed revenue from paid parking from $100,000 to $40,000 for 2025/2026; and

15. approves the use of reserves to fund the $310,000 shortfall in the Waste Management & Minimisation area with this being recouped in the 2026/2027 year from an increase to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit distribution; and

16. notes that the Annual Plan 2025/2026 will be presented for adoption at the Tasman District Council meeting on 25 June 2025.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 There are a range of cost pressures that are increasing our costs for 2025/2026 compared with those in the LTP 2024-2034. The primary drivers of these increased costs are:

4.1.1 higher than anticipated interest rates.

4.1.2 higher depreciation funding (as a result of increased asset valuations).

4.1.3 higher electricity costs.

4.1.4 higher maintenance costs.

4.1.5 new costs involved in water supply regulation from Central Government.

4.1.6 numerous other smaller increases.

4.2 In addition, expenditure forecasts for the 2024/2025 year indicate that the Council will have a net operating deficit greater than planned. Staff have been implementing measures to reduce expenditure, but it is highly likely that a deficit of approximately $6.5m will still be recorded. This affects the financial starting position going into the 2025/2026 Annual Plan year.

4.3 To try to limit the impact of the increasing costs on the rates increase for the 2025/2026 year the Council has:

4.3.1 Proposed increasing most fees and charges by 10%.

4.3.2 Indicated an interest in selling $3.0m of unencumbered Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) credits to offset the forecast $6.5m overspend in the 2024/2025 financial year.

4.3.3 Carried out a business review process to identify other opportunities to reduce costs and/or increase revenue across the Council.

4.4 Staff presented opportunities from the business review process and sought elected member feedback at a series of workshops.

4.5 At its meeting on 30 April 2025 the Council made a series of decisions on changes from the LTP 2024-2034 for inclusion in the Annual Plan for consultation.

4.6 At its meeting on 8 May 2025 the Council adopted a consultation document for a two week period of public consultation between 12 and 25 May 2025.

4.7 At its meeting to deliberate on the Schedule of Fees and Charges on 27 May 2025 the Council decided to reduce the proposed increase to mixed refuse fees from 18% to 15% which requires an increase in rates revenue of 0.215% over and above the 8.8% rates revenue increase included in the Annual Plan consultation document.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 There were 153 submissions received over the consultation period and we have prepared an overview of the submissions (Attachment 1). All submissions can be accessed and viewed here: TDC Submissions.

5.2 The community were invited to indicate whether they supported the Council’s approach to achieving the proposed rates revenue of 8.8% for 2025/2026 and provide feedback on the 15 proposals presented in the consultation document.

5.3 66 submitters did not support the Council’s approach to the rates revenue increase, 14 submitters supported the approach and 13 submissions were unclear.

5.4 The submission feedback regarding the proposals in the consultation document has been summarised below.

Catchment Management

5.5 Seven submissions were received on the proposed reduction to the Catchment Management Fund. They all highlighted the importance of this fund noting variously the role. Tasman waterways play as a tourist attraction, water quality, ecological health of water bodies and meeting the objectives of NPS -FM.

5.6 While staff believe that the Catchment fund is important to get increased environmental gains and leverage best practice from our landowners. This budget reduction is part of the cross-Council cost reductions to moderate the impact on rates. One consequence of dropping this funding is that we will not be able to leverage additional gains from the Jobs for Nature funding programmes as they start to wrap up at the end of this financial year. Staff will be bringing back requests to increase this funding as part of the next LTP process as we leverage off the back of the Farm Planning exercise and as we move to secure the gains made following the significant spend following the Jobs of Nature, Freshwater Improvement, and Billion Trees funding projects.

Information Technology

5.7 Two submissions were received on information technology with neither being supportive of the Council’s investment in this area.

Engagement and Communication

5.8 Only one submission was received on this topic with the submitter considering the Council spends too much on this activity.

Community Funding

5.9 Five submitters advocated for not reducing the funding for school pools and community events. They highlighted the impact this will have on opportunities for families to engage with others and the (perceived) lack of priority and inadequate funding provided by the Council for these activities, which they consider have substantial benefits.

5.10 With regards to events, there has been a purposeful move away from providing a wide range of events and focus on quality events that attract a large cross section of the community. The team who delivers the events is small with a wide focus beyond events such as environmental education. The budget allows flexibility to alter which events are supported annually, but within the financial envelope. Officers’ advice has not changed in recommending the reduction of the events budget.

5.11 The school swimming pool subsidy is a long-standing budget to assist with the cost of opening school pools during the summer, to encourage safety around water. The budget and the actual allocations have tracked differently over several years. The proposed reduction lines up with actual applications and allocations to date. To this end officers continue to recommend a reduction in the budget.

Roading and Public Transport

5.12 Three submitters commented on the correction of a budget error for Māpua Ferry with two reinforcing the importance of this service for Tasman’s Great Taste Trail and the other indicating it is a luxury. The Nelson Tasman Cycle Trail Trust urged the Council to continue with its investment in Tasman’s Great Taste Trail. One submitter suggested reducing the frequency of ferry services in the off-peak season.

5.13 Staff note that the Māpua Ferry is an important link in Tasman's Great Taste Trail. Without this link, the government funding we receive for operating and maintaining the Trail would be at risk. The currently contracted services have been determined as a balance between needs of cycle trail users, and costs.

5.14 Six submitters expressed proposed reduction in footpath and cycle maintenance budgets, noting variously the impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, safety, children and youth, elderly people and people on mobility scooters.

5.15 Staff note that these budget reductions are the result of New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) funding reductions for these modes of transport. The Council previously considered but decided not to increase local share of maintenance costs to replace the reduced NZTA funding in 2024 to 2027.

Paid Parking Richmond

5.16 Paid parking was one of the identified interventions in the 2018 Richmond and Motueka Town Centre Strategy for managing parking demands and getting best value for money. As part of the Annual Plan public consultation, a two-week survey was conducted where we received 347 responses on paid parking.

5.16.1 60% of respondents thought that parking users should cover the cost of carpark maintenance (n=206) compared with 40% of respondents who thought rate payers should cover the cost of carpark maintenance (n=137).

5.16.2 58% of respondents (n= 183) stated they would prefer to have both parking meters and a smartphone app. 22% stated that they would prefer to use parking meters (n= 68), 20% stated that they would prefer to use a smartphone app (n= 62).

5.16.3 When asked, how much people would be prepared to pay for parking, the majority said $4 a day was the maximum [67% (n= 207)], a minority were prepared to pay more: a) $5 a day [5% (n= 48)], b) $6 a day [9% (n= 29)], c) $8 a day [8% (n= 26].

Attachment 2 provides more detail on the Shape Tasman feedback on paid parking.

5.17 The key themes of the survey from the 160 comments were received are as follows:

5.17.1 Did not agree with paying for all-day car parks (52%, n=83)

5.17.2 $4 a day is difficult for employees (18%, n=28)

5.17.3 Agree with all day car parking (15%, n=25)

5.17.4 Free parking makes Richmond attractive (15%, n=24)

5.17.5 Will create a problem on residential streets: (15%, n=24)

5.18 Paid parking is a divisive topic and there will always be a range of differing views. The pricing of our proposed paid parking [$1 an hour up to a maximum of $4, first hour free] is low in comparison to other South Island regional centres including Nelson which charges $2 an hour. Should people choose not to pay, then the roads around the town centre provide free parking options within a 10-minute walking radius. We currently monitor parking demand at a 5-minute walking radius from the CBD. Provision of a small number of time-restricted parking locations within residential streets may be required to ensure these streets have some visitor parking available.

5.19 Staff recommend confirming the introduction of paid parking for all-day off-street carparks in the Richmond town centre at the tariff’s proposed in consultation.

5.20 However, staff have been investigating the implementation of paid parking and do not consider that we can hit the October 2025 timeline proposed. Instead, February 2026 is proposed. Forecast revenue will be lower as a result and the Annual Plan will need to reflect this. Staff estimate net revenue for the 2025/2026 year will be $40,000 rather than the $100,000 proposed. Net revenue in following years is still expected to be circa $100,000 per annum.

Urban Stormwater Networks

5.21 In its submission, Forest and Bird urged caution regarding reducing the budget for routine maintenance for vegetation control in open channels.

5.22 Staff note that the budget reduction will mean a lower level of service in vegetation control and may result in more untidy sites with ling grass etc. However, we still intend to protect riparian zones with appropriate planting and vegetation control.

Library Services

5.23 105 submitters strongly opposed the proposed reductions in library budgets and the consequential impact on services. There was no support for this proposal in submissions. Submitters referenced high level of library usage by a wide range of different age groups with the impact of the proposed reductions on children particularly highlighted. They reinforced the role of libraries as community hubs enabling the community interaction, providing a sense of place and enhancing vibrancy. Several submitters commented that the impacts are large for a relatively small budget saving and on the apparent contradiction in investing in a new library in Motueka and then reducing its opening hours.

5.24 The Annual Plan consultation document has signalled a proposal to reduce District Library funding by $130,000. This proposed change funding provision will result in the reduction of staffing levels by removing two vacant full time positions in Motueka and Richmond. In order to cover customer service desk activities, particularly cover for holidays and sickness and established programmes it will require an adjustment of service levels. This is as outlined within the background information provided at workshops.

5.25 The District Library budgets have been adjusted over a number of years. It would not be possible to find alternative budget reductions within the District Libraries, without any effect on services, if there was a decision to retain this funding within the annual plan 2025/2026.

Operating and Maintaining Council’s Water Supplies

5.26 Three submissions commented on our proposals for budget changes for water supplies. Staff note that we proposed a decrease of $140,000 for condition assessments of our water network and modelling. We have an increased renewal budgets ($750,000) to replace aging pipes before they fail too often and improving resilience.

Emergency Management

5.27 Three submissions were received on emergency management. One of these criticised the involvement of iwi, one suggested recovering the costs of managing oil spills from the parties responsible for the spills and one supported the budget increase.

5.28 Staff note that iwi representatives are a critical part of our CDEM service. Iwi/Māori are one of our partners and have systems and processes in place that make the CDEM response and recovery phase much more effective.

5.29 In response to the submission on oil spill management, staff agree that where possible we need to recover costs. In this case, the cost is to set the service up and actually allows Council an appropriate and fully staffed response capability.

Iwi Partnerships

5.30 Three submissions supported the budget increase for iwi partnerships. One submission recommended removing the Māori ward and iwi partnership costs and one submission requested more details on this budget.

5.31 Staff note the increase in iwi partnership budgets is minor and is consistent with continuing to develop the partnership between Iwi and the Council.

Regulatory Services

5.32 Four submitters supported the increased budget for regulatory services with the Tasman Bay Blue Penguin Trust supporting the increased level of service for Dog Control in particular.

5.33 Four submitters questioned the value of bringing regulatory services in-house at increased cost.

5.34 Dog Owners Golden Bay critiqued various aspects of the Council’s dog control work and the process to develop the Dog Control Bylaw 2024.

5.35 The decision to bring the rest of the Regulatory Services associated with these functions in-house was triggered by the former contract price not being financially sustainable for the operator. A formal Section 17A review was conducted in March 20245 which assessed the delivery model for these regulatory services. The conclusion was that an in-house model would, over the medium to long term, offer improved value for money, stronger service delivery, and greater alignment with Council’s strategic objectives and community expectations.

5.36 While one of the drivers of this change was to better manage costs, the 2025/2026 budget reflects transitional and start-up costs associated with establishing in-house capability. These include recruitment and training of new staff, investment in systems, equipment, and infrastructure, the need to maintain continuity of service during the transition.

5.37 The increased cost is also linked to the increased scope of the new Dog Control Bylaw and the new emphasis of national direction feeding into the upcoming freedom camping bylaw.

Wastewater Schemes

5.38 In its submission Forest and Bird supported the increased budget for routine wastewater maintenance and the increased funding for the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) to reduce wastewater overflows. It however, strongly opposed the decrease in the reactive maintenance, inflow and infiltration (I&I) reduction programmes, and CCTV inspections. Forest and Bird considers that reducing efforts to proactively identify and repair leaks and reduce I&I is counterproductive to reducing overflows and will likely lead to ongoing environmental contamination, breaching NPS-FM requirements.

5.39 Staff agree that it is important to monitor the networks and reduce I&I to reduce the risk to public health and the environment from wastewater overflows. Recent rain events have again highlighted the importance of identifying and fixing I &I issues even in relatively new subdivisions there is significant impact from inflow causing overflows or increased cost during events to manage the flows. The budget reduction was proposed to help reduce the rates revenue impacts on Tasman ratepayers, noting that wastewater budgets overall are proposed to increase in 2025/2026.

Maintaining our Parks and Reserves

5.40 Only two submissions were received on this topic, with Forest and Bird supporting the increase in budgets and the Motueka Community Swimming Pool Committee expressing its appreciation for the budget being brought forward.

Other Matters Raised in Submissions

5.41 Tasman Democracy raised concerns about the process and information provided to the public as part of the consultation. Council considers that it has met the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in respect to its consultation on the Annual Plan.

5.42 Staff note advice from the Motueka District Museum Board of their additional cost pressures that are making it harder to continue to operate. The key increases are related to insurance, power, maintenance, and staff wages.

5.43 It is recognised that ongoing significant funding pressure does make it harder for entities such as the Motueka Museum to continue to provide the same level of service. However in light of similar costs increases facing and the level of rates revenue increase already proposed, staff do not support this request.

5.44 It is also noted that providing increased funds to one entity could set a precedent whereby other organisation would seek similar increases which Council would not be able to meet without impacting rates.

5.45 Wakatū Incorporation noted its disappointment with the size of rates rises for householders in Motueka and advocated for the Council to concentrate on core Council functions when making funding decisions. Wakatū suggested a review of some compliance practices to ensure that they align with legislation citing soil contamination management as an example. It advocated for consultation on compliance practices and consideration about how they apply in the local context. Wakatū also noted tight resource consent conditions for Council projects, which often require multiple variations and results in further costs.

5.46 In response to Wakatū Incorporation’s comments on compliance practices, staff consider that current compliance practice does align with current legislation and supporting national instruments. The requirement of the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in soils to Protect Human Health Regulations (NESCS) have not changed. Surplus contaminated soils which are being moved from a HAIL site must be taken to an authorised facility. Regional background soils values are used to help identify where soils can be disposed of and the current approach to determining clean fill has been based on a report from 2015 which used a combination of background concentrations and ecological soil guideline values

5.47 Staff agree that our District needs a better framework for dealing with class 4 and 5 materials from contaminated sites. Council is progressing a plan change to provide better management of class 4 and 5 materials. A draft policy framework was discussed with a section of contractors and contaminated site specialists recently with the aim of getting a plan change out for consultation in the next few months.

5.48 In response to Wakatū Incorporation’s critique of resource consent conditions, staff note that consenting is a balancing act between defining detail up front and flexibility during the construction / build process. Applicants are able to propose a set of conditions that appropriately regulate their activity, but it is too often the case that the conditions need to be developed by the consent planner. Further, conditions can be reviewed before a consent is issued. We agree that positive outcomes for the community and the environment are important but also acknowledge that it is difficult to develop a set of conditions that achieve a balance that suits all interests.

5.49 Keep Motueka Beautiful is seeking funding of $5,000 in 2025/2026 to enable the upgrade and extension of a footpath in Sanctuary Ponds and carry out weed control.

5.50 Staff recommend support this submission, noting the valuable work Keep Motueka carries out in the community. This funding should only be used for work in Council reserves in close liaison with the Council’s Reserves and Facilities staff. This $5,000 additional funding would be funded from Reserve Financial Contributions.

5.51 The Heritage Wharf Restoration Group is seeking funding of between $25,000 to $200,000 to assist in the renovation of the Motueka Heritage Wharf, which is a Council asset. The actual level of funding the group requires will depend on whether or not it is successful with a Lotteries funding application.

5.52 Staff confirm that professional advice obtained in late 2023 concludes the heritage wharf is owned by Council; the 2024 Coastal Assets AMPs acknowledges this ownership but notes that ongoing management of the wharf had not been accounted for as it is not an “operational” structure.

5.53 Staff have been supporting the Heritage Wharf Restoration Group for several years to date, contributing time, advice, and project management support. Staff have also administered the $10,000 budget approved by the Motueka Community Board in 2024 to procure structural engineering services to support the project.

5.54 The Heritage Wharf Restoration Group have been very successful in securing funds and enabling Archaeological Authority on behalf of TDC to complete the restoration work; the only remaining barrier to completing the work is sufficient budget to top-up the growing pot of grants the Group has already secured. The hard work of the Restoration Group presents a unique opportunity for Council to complete the restoration work in an efficient, timely, and cost-effective way.

5.55 Staff recommend providing funding up to $200,000 depending on the outcome of the Lotteries funding application. As this funding is being applied to a Council asset it is capital expenditure and should be funded by borrowing with a minor impact on rates revenue of $20,000 to service the loan. The work on the Heritage Wharf will be managed by the Project Delivery Office.

Water Charges for Nelson City Council and Industrial Users

5.56 The water charges for the service supplied to Nelson City Council and the Nelson Industrial Water Supply area are calculated based on rates information so that these charges change in line with the rates.

5.57 At the 30 April 2025 meeting the Council approved the proposed charges for the water supplied to Nelson City Council for the Nelson residential water supply area and supplied to the Nelson Industrial Water Supply Area below.

Water Supply

Proposed Charges from 1 July 2025 incl. GST

Current Charges Incl. GST

Water supplied by Tasman District Council to Nelson City Council (Nelson Residential Water Supply Area) per cubic metre supplied

$6.79

$6.12

Water supplied to Nelson Industrial Water Supply Area (per cubic metre supplied)

Plus fixed daily charge per rating unit

$4.08

$1.90

$3.56

$1.80

5.58 These charges affect a defined group of organisations being Nelson City Council and the industrial water users. Staff contacted these groups to carry out targeted consultation with them.

5.59 No feedback has been received from these organisations and staff recommend confirming the proposed fees listed above.

Nelson Tasman Business Trust (NTBT) – Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber)

5.60 Council has a three-year funding agreement ($25,000 plus inflation per annum) with the NTBT approved through the LTP 2024-2034, to provide business support to businesses in Tasman. Due to closure of the NTBT as from 30 June 2025.

5.61 The Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce has advised it is able to provide these services.

5.62 The Council has a positive relationship with the Chamber and it has a strong profile across Tasman businesses already.

5.63 Therefore Council staff consider the Chamber as being well positioned to provide these services and recommends the remaining two years of the approved LTP funding be provided to the Chamber to carry out business Mentoring and Support across Tasman in agreement with a confirmed Funding Agreement.

Additional Capital Budget Changes

5.64 Staff have identified three additional changes to the capital expenditure budget that overall supports the reduction of the identified deficit and also supports growth.

5.65 The first is to increase the capital budget by $250,000 in 2025/2026 (budget brought forward) to support the upzoning of 17Ha of deferred land in Richmond South to allow growth to occur in the area in a timely manner (equivalent of approx. 250 properties). Being a growth project this will be funded by Development Contributions. It is to take the opportunity (of efficiencies) to install a falling main (for local reticulation) at the same time as the current project to install the main trunk pipe to the reservoir (also currently getting constructed). This cost will be included in future development contribution charges when the policy is next updated in 2027.

5.66 The second is to decrease the 2025/2026 budget for finding and installing a new source of water for Dovedale from $1.97M to $0.5M. This resultant budget (~$1.5M) is to be deferred over the following two years. The overall budget is $6.3M spread over 4 years which is not expected to change. Completion time of the project will not be affected. The reallocation is due to the rephasing of the project that allows for design and consenting to happen next year, prior to construction in following years.

5.67 The third change is to provisionally increase the capital stormwater budget by $1M. The budget is to possibly purchase a section of land that could be utilised for stormwater detention and/or wetland in the Seaton Valley area. This is to support the implementation of the Mapuā Masterplan following the masterplan process. This is provisional on the basis that a decision on whether to recommend this land purchase from the Māpua Masterplan Hearing Committee is expected on 5 June 2025. The cost, if required, will be recovered 80% through development contributions. This cost will be included in future development contribution charges when the policy is next updated in 2027.

Additional Employer Kiwi Saver contribution

5.68 In the recent budget announcement by Central Government an increase in the employer contribution was mandated, From 1 April 2026 the contribution will increase from 3.0% to 3.5%. The impact on TDC is $70,000.

Waste Management and Minimisation

5.69 At the Council meeting on the 27^th of May Council agreed to the reduction to the fees and charges associated with the disposal of waste at the TDC resource recovery facilities. Council also made it clear that they would expect the rate increase associated with this to be neutral.

5.70 To give this effect staff will request an increase to the NTRLBU distribution by the $310,000 in the 2026/2027 financial year. If successful, this will mitigate the impact of the reduction if fees.

Motueka Community Board

5.71 The Motueka Community Board wanted no increase to the Motueka Community Board rate in 2025/2026, as well as commenting on other aspects of the Community Board’s budget.

5.72 Staff can confirm that there has been no increase to that targeted rate. In due course staff will discuss the budget aspects of the submission with the Community Board and ensure that the budget reflects their wishes. Any change will be immaterial and will not impact the Motueka Community Board rate.

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

6.1 The net outcome of the changes decided on in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 resulted in a rates revenue increase of 8.8% (excluding growth) for 2025/2026, and forecast net debt of $299m.

6.2 Through the LTP 2024-2034 and the budget reductions included in the Annual Plan consultation document we have very limited capacity to respond to shocks. We have exhausted our ability to absorb any increases in operational costs through the deliberations process without this being reflected in further rates revenue increases.

6.3 At the deliberations meeting for the Schedule of Fees and Charges on 27 May 2025 the Council decided to reduce mixed refuse fees by 15% instead of the proposed 18% with a resulting increase in rates revenue required in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 of 0.215%.

6.4 A number of changes have been recommended by staff. The net result of these is negligible and the rate increase will remain at 8.8%. The Net Debt figure will also remain virtually the same as the figure we consulted on of $299m.

6.5 The table below summarises the impacts:

Description	Rates Impact	Debt Impact
Resource Recovery Centre (RCC) adjustment to Fees	0.00%	0
Keep Motueka Beautiful funding $5,000	0.00%	0
Capital of $200,000 Motueka Heritage Wharf Restoration Project	0.02%	200
Capital funding by $250,000 Richmond South project in the Water Activity	0.02%	250
Change of phasing to the Dovedale water supply capital project. Decrease in capital spend on $1.35m	-0.13%	-1,350
Add $1m of capital funding for the Māpua Master Plan	0.02%	1,000
Adds $25k of operating costs to the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce offset by decrease in NTBT	0.00%	0
Increases the Kiwi Saver contribution from 3.0% to 3.5% from April 1, 2026.	0.07%	0
Reduction in Trade Waste Revenue	0.01%	0
Total	0.00%	100

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Accept all the recommended changes	Retains the Council’s service levels in most areas Enables the Annual Plan process to progress and strike rates by 1 July 2025. Strikes balance between preserving and delivering the services that the community value and affordability. Responds to some requests for funding in submissions and other changes since the consultation was adopted.	There will be a reduction in the extent of services provided by the Council in some areas. For example, libraries and maintained street gardens.
2.	Accept some or none of the recommended changes	Depends on changes rejected – could increase or decrease rates and net debt.	Depends on the changes rejected. 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.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Accept all the recommended changes

Retains the Council’s service levels in most areas

Enables the Annual Plan process to progress and strike rates by 1 July 2025.

Strikes balance between preserving and delivering the services that the community value and affordability.

Responds to some requests for funding in submissions and other changes since the consultation was adopted.

There will be a reduction in the extent of services provided by the Council in some areas. For example, libraries and maintained street gardens.

Accept some or none of the recommended changes

Depends on changes rejected – could increase or decrease rates and net debt.

Depends on the changes rejected.

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.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 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.

8.2 The general presumption is that the Council will consult on its Annual Plan. This requirement does not apply if the Annual Plan does not include significant or material differences from the content of the LTP for the year in question.

8.3 At its meeting on 30 April 2025 the Council concluded that the changes it proposed in its Annual Plan 2025/2026 were material and that consultation should be carried out under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

8.4 Section 82 (1) contains several principles for consultation that the Council is required to meet summarised below:

8.4.1 Interested or affected persons should be provided with reasonable access to relevant information in a form that is appropriate for their preferences.

8.4.2 Interested or affected persons should be encouraged to present their views.

8.4.3 Interested or affected persons should be given clear information about the purpose of the consultation and scope of decisions.

8.4.4 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.

8.4.5 The views presented should be received by the Council with an open mind and should be given due consideration.

8.4.6 Persons who present views should be given access to a description of relevant decisions and explanatory material relating to the decisions.

8.5 Section 82(3) provides discretion to the Council about how it observes these principles.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Iwi were contacted directly to notify them of the proposed changes in the Annual Plan and offer the opportunity to provide feedback. No submissions were received from Iwi.

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

10.1 The significance of the combined set of proposed changes including the change to the rates revenue increase in the Annual Plan was assessed as being high overall. In addition, the changes collectively were material considered material.

10.2 As a result of the extended time 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 was compressed.

10.3 A consultation document was adopted at the 30 April 2025 Council meeting and public consultation was carried out between 12-25 May 2025.

10.4 As part of the consultation process a public online consultation session at which the context and key changes were explained, questions answered and verbal feedback from attendees received was carried out on 15 June 2025.

10.5 Managers across the organisation were encouraged to communicate any of the changes in their area of activity included in the Annual Plan consultation document with parties affected or interested.

10.6 Targeted consultation was 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 wellbeing.
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	A number 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

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 The Annual Plan consultation was publicised in Newsline, newspaper advertising, Shape Tasman and through social media.

11.2 The Council’s decisions on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 will be communicated through the media, Newsline, Shape Tasman and through social media.

11.3 Once the Annual Plan has been adopted, staff will write to the submitters to inform them of the decision made.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 As noted in the 8 May 2025 report to adopt the Annual Plan consultation document carrying 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 remains a residual risk of legal challenge.

12.2 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 was undertaken.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The overall impact on climate resilience and adaptation is likely to be minor.

13.2 Some of the budget changes have a more direct impact on climate change, such as the reduction in budgets for climate adaptation planning in the Service and Strategy area. This is particularly the case because delaying comprehensive adaptation strategies not only reduces the impact of available funds but also increases future costs, as the longer we wait to address climate change, the more expensive and difficult it becomes to manage its impacts.

13.3 For other budget changes that could potentially impact climate change e.g. increased budget for the eBus service and introducing parking charges in Richmond, the impact on the public’s behaviour is indirect and impacts are very difficult to assess.

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

14.1 The Council is attempting to deliver on its vision Thriving and Resilient Tasman and the strategic priorities in the LTP 2024-2034, whilst avoiding the cost of rates being unaffordable.

14.2 The Council has considered a substantial range of changes to help reduce the burden on ratepayers. Some of these are not proposed for inclusion in the Annual Plan because of the perceived substantial impact they will have on this vision and strategic priorities.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 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.

15.2 To keep the Annual Plan process progressing in time to strike rates by 30 June 2025, Council adopted an Annual Plan consultation document and carried out consultation between 12-25 May 2025.

15.3 153 submissions were received and in this report the Council considers those submissions and is asked to make decisions on what to include in its Annual Plan 2025/2026.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The final Annual Plan 2025/2026 is due to be adopted on 25 June 2025.

1. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri