Notice is given that an ordinary meeting of the Tasman District Council will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Zoom conference link:

Meeting ID:

Meeting Passcode:

Thursday 31 July 2025

9.30am

Tasman Council Chamber
189 Queen Street, Richmond

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88149754774?

881 4975 4774

840611

 

Tasman District Council

 

Kaunihera Katoa

 

 AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

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

 

(Quorum 7 members)

 

 

 

Contact Telephone: 03 543 8400

Email: Robyn.Scherer@tasman.govt.nz

Website: www.tasman.govt.nz

 


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

AGENDA

1        Opening, Welcome, KARAKIA

2        Apologies and Leave of Absence

 

Recommendation

That the apologies be accepted.

 

3        Public Forum

Nil

4        Declarations of Interest

5        LATE ITEMS

6        Confirmation of minutes

 

 

That the minutes of the Tasman District Council meeting held on Wednsday, 11 June 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

 

That the minutes of the Tasman District Council meeting held on Thursday, 19 June 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

 

That the minutes of the Tasman District Council meeting held on Wednesday, 25 June 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

 

That the confidential minutes of the Tasman District Council meeting held on Thursday, 19 June 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

 

7        Reports

7.1    Civil Defence Emergency - June/July 2025............. 5

7.2    Local Government Ratepayer Assistance Scheme Proposal................................................................... 6

7.3    Amendments to the Delegations Register............. 33

7.4    Richmond Association Football Club - Reserve Financial
Contributions Funding............................................
43

7.5    Mayoral Relief Fund - June/July 2025................... 48

7.6    Waimea Water Limited - Final Statement of Intent 2025/2026.............................................................. 55

7.7    Local Government Funding Agency Limited - Final Statement of Intent
2025-2028..............................................................
90

7.8    Chief Executive's Update..................................... 110

7.9    Mayoral Update Report........................................ 118

8        Confidential Session

8.1    Procedural motion to exclude the public....................... 141

8.2    Penalty Remission Referral................................. 141

9        CLOSING KARAKIA


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7     Reports

7.1    Civil Defence Emergency - June/July 2025

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Robyn Scherer, Executive Assistant and Advisor to the Mayor

Report Authorisers:

Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer

Report Number:

RCN25-07-1

 

1.       Presentation / Whakatakotoranga

Transportation Manager, Jamie McPherson and Principal Hydrologist, Martin Doyle will make two separate presentations to the Council relating to the civil defence emergency, June/July 2025.

 

2.       Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7.2    Local Government Ratepayer Assistance Scheme Proposal

Decision Required

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Mike Drummond, Chief Financial Officer

Report Authorisers:

Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer

Report Number:

RCN25-07-2

 

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

1.1     To determine the Council’s investment (if any) to complete the proposal for a Local Government Ratepayer Assistance Scheme (RAS).

2.       Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1     Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), along with a group of metro councils, the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited (LGFA), Rewiring Aotearoa (RA) and Cameron Partners have been working on a financing scheme; the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme (RAS). Council involvement in the scheme is voluntary.

2.2     The scheme promoters have prepared a presentation on the proposed scheme (Attachment 1). There are still scheme details to be finalised and further work and funding ($2.5 million) for this is required.

2.3     The scheme was originally envisaged as a rates postponement scheme to allow ratepayers to defer the payments of rates and for the deferred rates and interest to come out of a future sale of the property. This approach is like equity release through a Reverse Mortgage or a Home Reversion Scheme.

2.4     The original proposal has expanded to now include funding for Development Contributions and Property Improvement Loans. This change aims to achieve the critical mass needed for financial viability by incorporating deferred contributions and levies into the scheme.

2.5     To undertake final development requires additional funding commitment from the sector of $2.5 million. The Council has been invited to subscribe to this additional funding for an equity stake in the proposed RAS Council Control Organisation (CCO) should it proceed.  We understand that the group proposing the scheme has already received sufficient funding commitments to proceed with final development the proposal.

2.6     The LGFA has made no assumptions regarding the impact to their recent Statement of Intent (SOI) forecasts from the proposed Ratepayer Assistance Scheme (“RAS”). LGFA has committed (subject to shareholder approval) to contributing towards the establishment and ongoing management of the RAS. This Council, as a LGFA shareholder, will at a future date need to decide to support or otherwise the LGFA’s involvement.

2.7     Staff have concerns over the increased extent of the proposal, the LGFA taking an equity stake in the RAS vehicle, the potential shifting of developer costs onto new landowners and the expectation of the Council being involved in funding property improvement loans. This report includes some commentary on these concerns, but that is not the focus of this report - that is a decision to fund further development of the proposal. 

3.       Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1.       receives the Local Government Ratepayer Assistance Scheme Proposal report, RCN25-07-1; and

2.       notes the proposal prepared by Local Government New Zealand, Local Government Funding Agency, Rewiring Aotearoa and Cameron Partners, Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

3.       notes the decision to support the final Local Government Ratepayer Assistance Scheme is a matter for a future Council decision; and

4.       declines the opportunity to invest in the proposed Local Government Ratepayer Assistance Scheme at this time; and

5.       declines at this time to participate in the proposed Local Government Ratepayer Assistance Scheme; and

6.       requests staff advise the Local Government Funding Agency, the Local Government Funding Agency Shareholders’ Council and Local Government New Zealand of these decisions.

4.       Background / Horopaki

4.1     LGNZ, along with a group of metro councils, the LGFA, RA and Cameron Partners have been working on a financing scheme; the RAS.

4.2     Due to the LGFA involvement the proposal has been discussed by the LGFA Shareholders Council.  There were a range of views over the scheme and the involvement of the LGFA in providing funding including taking an equity stake in the proposed CCO.

4.3     This attached presentation (Attachment 1) sets out details of the proposed RAS and seeks support from councils.  The RAS is intended to supply three funding services to councils:

4.3.1 Deferred Development Contributions/Development Levies

4.3.2 Property Improvement Loans

4.3.3 Rates Postponement

Deferred Development Contributions/Development Levies

4.4     Development Contributions are paid by developers typically in Tasman when the subdivision is consented. There is no evidence that, for this Council, the impost of Development Contributions is restricting housing growth. The proposal would allow developers to convert those Development Contributions into annual payments over c30 years. This approach would move the Development Contribution cost on to the subsequent landowners. Given section prices are driven primarily by availability and market forces, I would not expect that this scheme option would reduce section prices. It could more likely increase developers’ profit margins. 

4.5     This is really a consideration of whether providing financing for developers is a core function of the Council, given the other demands on our limited resources.

Property Improvement Loans

4.6     In the past the Council has provided some loans via the Warmer Tasman Scheme. These have been phased out over the last 10 years.  Councils have been warned over being involved in consumer financing with following all the consumer finance requirements.  The repayments required individual targeted rates to be applied to individual properties. That was an administratively burdensome process. 

4.7     In recent times, these types of property improvement loans are being provided by banks often at concessional rates. The more likely uptake would come from ratepayers without a mortgage meeting the additional costs would still need that normal lending criteria to be enforced.

4.8     Central government may also use the opportunity to place pressure on local government to provide funding to support government initiatives like increasing sola power uptake or improving the housing stock.

4.9     This is really a consideration of whether this a core function of the Council given the other demands on our limited resources.

Rates Postponement

4.10   This Council does not have an existing Rates Postponement Scheme.  Previous Rates Postponement Schemes I have been involved with were expensive to set up and run and had very limited uptake. Ratepayers were sensibly required to take independent financial advice before entering such schemes. 

4.11   There are private sector alternatives to release equity from a property. These are relatively complex structures requiring legal and financial advice. These alternatives include:

4.11.1         The widely advertised Reverse Mortgage Schemes (offered by Heartland Bank               and SBS Bank) These typically have interest rates around 2% higher than bank           mortgage rates along with upfront legal and valuation fees.

4.11.2         The more recent (2024) Home Reversion Schemes. Homeowners aged 70+                    sell up to 35% of their home’s equity over 10 years. In return, they receive                          regular income payments (~2.5% of home value per annum), no interest or debt           accrual. This scheme also has upfront legal and valuation fees.

4.12   Management of a Council-endorsed scheme would need administration support and these costs would need to be recovered from the Rates Postponement Scheme participants.  Given the alternatives provided by the private sector, the key advantage to ratepayers of the proposed RAS Rates Postponement Scheme would be lower interest costs, as funding would come from the LGFA.

4.13   What the RAS is and how it works:

4.13.1         The RAS would be operated by a Council Controlled Organisation.

4.13.2         The Council would need to meet the RAS membership requirements including developing its IT interface, invoicing and collection systems, security requirements. This is likely to be costly given the current Council’s legacy financial system.

4.13.3         The RAS would lend directly to ratepayers and the Council would collect the repayments. There would be administration costs for the Council.

4.13.4         The RAS debt would be off the Council balance sheet as no Council would hold more than 20% of the equity in the RAS.

4.13.5         Any charges from the RAS to ratepayers would need to be collected by the Council as part of the rates, although they will likely be described as a levy on the rates bill.  That is similar to how growth funding under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act (IFF) is managed.

4.13.6         Councils can opt into RAS. 

5.       Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1     The attached presentation is positioned as a promotional case for Council involvement in the proposed ratepayer assistance funding scheme. It is framed as a promotional overview and should be considered in that context when assessing the merits and potential risks of participation.

5.2     The background section of this report covers the wider aspects of the current proposal. This analysis and advice are focused on the immediate request for the Council to fund the continued development of the scheme that ultimately would convert to an equity stake in the RAS CCO.

5.3     The proposal assumes that LGFA shareholders will support its involvement in the RAS, including taking an equity share. This approach raises some concerns. The Council, as a shareholder in the LGFA and as a guarantor of LGFA debt, has an increased exposure. It is also being debated if it is appropriate for the LGFA to move from its core role in funding local government into this new activity. 

5.4     The business case is set out in slide 15 of the Attachment 1. The key matter is that the business case relies on the proposed scheme achieving scale especially given the low 1% margin to cover its operating costs. A break-even point would be c $700 million in RAS loans.

5.5     The scheme promoters require sufficient funding to move forward and finalise the proposal. None of this funding would be spent before the estimated cost has been covered. Our understanding is that sufficient funding has been committed for the final development of the scheme to proceed.

5.6     Given the Council’s financial position and the demands being placed on the Council at this time, it is proposed that no investment into this scheme be made.  

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

6.1     There is no budgeted investment in the proposed RAS. To invest, the Council would need to borrow funds. With the recent weather-related events, the Council’s finances and in particular the Council’s borrowing limits will be under considerable pressure.

6.2     If the Council was to invest an amount in the order of $50,000 to $100,000 could be seen a reasonable commitment.

6.3     A return on that unbudgeted investment would be some years away. 

7.       Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1     The options are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

1.

To invest in the completion of the RAS Proposal

Small potentially commercial opportunity.

Would support this sector initiative.

Immediate requirement to borrow to fund the investment.

The scheme may not proceed meaning the investment would be lost.

2.

Not to invest in the completion of the RAS Proposal

No immediate financial commitment.

Will not impact a future Council accessing the RAS if it proceeds.

Lost potential investment opportunity.

 

7.2     Option 2 Not to invest in the completion of the RAS Proposal is recommended.

8.       Legal / Ngā ture 

8.1     There are no legislative requirements about this decision.

9.       Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

 9.1    There has been no iwi consultation on this decision.

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

10.1   This decision is of low significance and no engagement has occurred.

 

 

Issue

Level of Significance

Explanation of Assessment

1.

Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?

No

This decision is to invest in the current RAS proposal to progress it to the go/no-go stage.

2.

Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?

No

 

3.

Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?

No

 

4.

Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)

No

 

5.

Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?

No

 

6.

Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?

No

 

7.

Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?

No

 

8.

 Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?

No

 

9.

Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities? 

No

 

10.

Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?

No

 

11.     Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1   No communication has occurred or is planned

12.     Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1   There are no material risks in this decision. The RAS will progress to the go/no go decision point whether or not this Council provides funding for the remaining development work.

13.     Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1   This matter requiring a decision in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’. There are no climate change considerations relevant to this decision.

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

14.1   There are no policies relevant to this decision. There is no provision in the 2025-26 Annual Plan or the 2025-35 Long Term Plan for an investment or consideration of a Ratepayer Assistance Scheme.

15.     Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1   This report is primarily to provide information to elected members on the developing Ratepayer Assistance Scheme. It outlines an opportunity for the Council to support the proposed RAS by co-funding further development of the proposal. Given the Council’s financial position and its priorities it is not recommended that the Council support the further development of the proposal.

16.     Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1   The Council’s decision will be communicated to LGNZ, the LGFA and the LGFA Shareholders’ Council.

 

17.     Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.

LGFA Ratepayers Assistance Scheme

13

  


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

A logo for a government

AI-generated content may be incorrect.



















A logo for a government

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7.9    Amendments to the Delegations Register

Decision Required

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Deidre Hemera, Assurance and Improvement Manager

Report Authorisers:

Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer

Report Number:

RCN25-07-3

 

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

1.1     To seek delegations in the Tasman District Council Delegations Register for the Chief Executive Officer.

2.       Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1     The report requests approval to increase the financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer from $1 million to $10 million. The proposed changes are appended in Attachment 1 with tracked changes.

2.2     The Government Procurement Rule 8 requires the consideration of the total value over the whole of life of each contract. The implementation of Rule 8 will increase the value of procurements for approval to more than the current financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer. The financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer was last amended in 2012.

2.3     Legislation requires that only the Council can delegate its powers and functions, and this applies to the financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer. Any changes, or additions to delegations, under this statute must be made by the Council.

2.4     The financial authority delegation this report seeks of the Council to increase is already delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. The report does not seek to amend any of the other existing financial authority delegations to staff.

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

3.       Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1.       receives the Amendments to the Delegations Register report RCN25-07-3; and

2.       approves the proposed increase to the financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer, Attachment 1 to the agenda report, being an extract from the Council’s Delegations Register; and

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

 

 

4.       Background / Horopaki

4.1     Legislation requires that only the Council can delegate its powers and functions, and this applies to the Chief Executive Officer’s financial delegation.

4.2     The Government Procurement Rule 8 requires the consideration of the total value over the whole of life of each contract. The total value must include everything required for the full delivery of the goods, services or works. This includes the value of the options to purchase additional goods, services or works; options to extend the term of the contract; paying any premiums, fees or commissions to the supplier or broker; any related revenue streams a supplier receives; any other form of remuneration or payment due to the supplier or to a third party or any interest payable.

4.3     The implementation of Rule 8 will increase the value of procurements for approval to more than the current financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer.

4.4     The financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer was last amended in 2012.

5.       Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1     In response to Rule 8 of the Government Procurement Rules procurement thresholds reflect whole of life contract value. Whole of life contract value includes all potential contract extensions, maintenance, disposal costs as well as broader outcomes (e.g. economic, social, environmental).

5.2     Using whole-of-life contract value ensures the Council considers all costs over the lifespan of a good or service—not just the upfront price—leading to better long-term financial and service outcomes. This approach helps avoid hidden future costs and supports more sustainable, strategic investment decisions.

5.3     The consequence of this change is that procurements or contracts previously approved by the Chief Executive Officer will no longer fall within their delegation. This table provides examples of how the use of Whole of Life (“WOL”) contract values changes the thresholds for which procurements/contracts can be approved by the CEO in their current $1 million delegation.

 

Initial 3 year contract

Possible extension for 2 years

Disposal / Exit Costs

Whole of Life Cost (WoL)

Approval without WoL

Approval with WoL

Contract A

$500k

$300k

$50k

$850k

Within CEO delegation

Within CEO delegation

Contract B

$700k

$400k

$50k

$1.05m

Within CEO delegation

Outside CEO delegation

Contract C

$900k

$700k

$100k

$1.7m

Within CEO delegation

Outside CEO delegation

Contract D

$4m

$3m

$500k

$7.5m

Outside CEO delegation

Outside CEO delegation

5.4     To ensure continued efficiency, an increase in the CEO financial delegation is recommended to reduce unnecessary delays and administrative burden.

5.5     This report seeks that the Council increases the financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer from $1 million to a minimum of $10 million.

5.6     This increase is essential for the Chief Executive Officer to approve contracts which now have incorporate the Whole of Life costs. As such, delegations under the Governance section (Councillors’ Delegations) and the Statutory Delegations are required to enable efficiency and legislative compliance in delivering services.

5.7     The financial delegation of the Chief Executive Officer this report seeks the Council to increase is to enable approval of contracts for projects already approved by the Council through their inclusion in the long term plan.

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

6.1     There are no financial or budgetary implications for the Council approving the proposed changes to the Delegations Register.

7.       Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1     The options are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

1.

Approve the proposed change to the Delegations Register to increase the financial delegation for the Chief Executive Officer from $1 million to $10 Million

Enables alignment with the Government Procurement Rules, Rule 8 and relative to the outcome of the increased value of contracts which are now impacted by their whole of life value.

Enables efficiency in contract approval.

No disadvantages.

2.

Approve the proposed change to the Delegations Register to increase the financial delegation for the Chief Executive Officer from $1 million to $5 Million

Enables alignment with the Government Procurement Rules, Rule 8 and relative to the outcome of the increased value of contracts which are now impacted by their whole of life value.

Enables efficiency in contract approval.

The increase to $5 million may not be adequate to meet the number of procurements which will exceed $5 million.

Impacts on efficiency in delivering services.

3.

Do not approve the proposed changes to the Delegations Register or only approve in part.

No advantages.

Impacts on efficiency in delivering services.

Demands on the CEO to request authority to approve requests exceeding their delegated financial authority.

7.2     Option 1 is recommended.

8.       Legal / Ngā ture 

8.1     Delegated authority needs to come directly from the Council.

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

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

 

 

Issue

Level of Significance

Explanation of Assessment

1.

Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?

Low

Generally, delegations are an operational matter for the Council to ensure that the Council can operate as efficiently as possible.

2.

Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?

Low

It is important that staff hold appropriate delegations to make decisions which can have a positive or not so positive impact on those customers. 

3.

Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?

Low

Ensuring delegations are in place helps to improve services for customers and at the same time, reduce risk to the Council.

4.

Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)

NA

 

5.

Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?

NA

 

6.

Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?

NA

 

7.

Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?

NA

 

8.

Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?

NA

 

9.

Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities? 

NA

 

10.

Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?

NA

 

 

10.     Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

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

11.     Risks / Ngā Tūraru

11.1   There are no risks applicable if the increase to the financial delegated authority is increased.

11.2   There is a risk of non-compliance with the Government Procurement Rules, Rule 8, if the increase in financial delegated authority is not increased by continuing to approve procurements which are not inclusive of Whole of Life values. 

12.     Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

12.1   Ensuring the increase to the financial delegated authority of the Chief Executive Officer will enable compliance with the Government Procurement Rules and improve efficiencies, and it is recommended that the proposed changes to the Delegations Register be approved by the Council.

13.     Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

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

 

14.     Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.

Schedule of Financial Delegations

41

  


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7.4    Richmond Association Football Club - Reserve Financial Contributions Funding

Decision Required

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager

Report Authorisers:

Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure

Report Number:

RCN25-07-4

 

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

1.1     This report is to consider additional funding from the Richmond Reserve Financial Contributions (RFC’s) account to cover the Development Contributions charged to the Richmond Association Football Club’s (AFC) which it was not aware of when estimating the costs associated with the development of new changing rooms and toilets at Jubilee Park Richmond.

2.       Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1     The Council allocated $435,000 towards the Richmond AFC toilet and changing room development in 2024/25. The funding which was approximately 60% of the total project cost in line with the RFC funding policy and funded from the Richmond Reserve Financial Contributions budget. The balance of the project cost was covered by Richmond AFC.

2.2     With all the physical works completed, the Club has found it has a shortfall in funding. Some of this shortfall relates to the Development Contribution levies that were applied with the Building Consent application and was not foreseen as a cost by the Club.  The Club has approached the Council with a request to cover the Development Contribution levies.

2.3     The Development Contribution levies amounted to $46,000 (excl GST). 

3.       Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Council

1.       receives the Richmond Association Football Club - Reserve Financial Contributions Funding report RCN25-07-4; and

2.       approves additional funding of $46,000 (excluding GST) from the Richmond Reserves Financial Contributions Account 2025/26 to cover the Development Contributions levied against the new changing rooms and toilets at Jubilee Park, Richmond. 

 

 

4.       Background / Horopaki

4.1     The club has recently advised Council staff that it has exceeded its project budget due to unforeseen construction-related expenses and variations. In addition, the club had not anticipated being liable for Development Contributions, which have been confirmed at a cost of $46,000.

5.       Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1     Staff have considered the request for additional funding and recommend assisting the club with the funding Development Contribution component of the costs amounting to $46,000.  This will enable the club to cover some of its outstanding costs. 

5.2     The Richmond AFC plays an important role in the Richmond community by offering both men's and women's football teams. The clubroom facilities support these teams and are also shared with the Toi Toi Cricket Club, ensuring efficient use of Council-provided space at Jubilee Park.

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

6.1     After the recent adoption of the Annual Plan 2025/2026, the estimated closing balance of the Richmond RFC account as at 30 June 2026 will be $7.1 million. Therefore, the account has sufficient funds to accommodate the proposed $46,000.

6.2     However, it should be noted that the recent emergency events will place considerable pressure on an already stressed Annual Plan budget for the 2025/2026 year and the debt cap. This will only add to that even though the amount is from an account with sufficient funds.

7.       Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1     The options are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

1.

Approve the contribution of $46,000 to cover the Development Contributions levies.

The club can meet their project funding responsibilities.

Requires the use of additional Richmond RFC funding.

2.

Decline the funding request.

No further RFCs used on this project

The club will be impacted financially and won’t receive code of compliance certification until they can pay outstanding regulatory bills.

3

Approve funding a portion of the $46,000.

The club will receive some funding relief.

The club will need to source additional funding from other sources to cover the shortfall.

7.2     Option 1 is recommended.

8.       Legal / Ngā ture 

8.1     There are no known legal requirements relating specifically to this decision.

8.2     Currently the club is required to pay the Development Contributions levied before a code of compliance certificate can be issued under the Building Act.

9.       Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

 9.1    This decision has no known implications for iwi.

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

 

 

Issue

Level of Significance

Explanation of Assessment

1.

Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?

Low - moderate

There may be some interest from other clubs, churches or developers.

2.

Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?

Mod - high

May impact on the club’s ability to operate and provide a community service as this decision would help the club’s financial position.

3.

Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?

Moderate

There could be a significant impact over several years on the club financially as the DC levies were not budgeted and if not paid, penalties could apply.

4.

Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)

NA

Private club asset on Council Open Space land.

5.

Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?

No

Does not impact on levels of service provided by the Council.

6.

Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?

No

The proposal will have a relatively minor impact on the Richmond RFCs budget in 2024/25.

7.

Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?

No

 

8.

 Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?

No

 

9.

Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities? 

No

 

10.

Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?

No

 

 

11.     Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1   Communication has been carried out with the Richmond AFC club and the Regulatory and Policy teams within Council.

12.     Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1   If this decision is not approved, it may have financial impacts for the club that could jeopardise its ability to operate during the current season or even in the longer term.

12.2   There is a risk of setting a precedent that could have negative financial implications for the Council, should other clubs located on reserve land seek RFC funding to cover additional development contribution costs in similar circumstances.

13.     Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1   There are no known impacts on climate change from this decision.

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

14.1   The request from the club for additional Richmond RFC funding to assist with project costs does not conflict with any policies or strategic plans.

15.     Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1   The request for additional funding from the Richmond AFC has arisen due to unforeseen Development Contribution levies associated with the changing room and toilet development at Jubilee Park. 

15.2   While this situation is unfortunate, it could be argued that some of these costs might have been anticipated with more thorough planning by the Club. However, it is important to acknowledge that the individuals managing the project are volunteers, committed to supporting their club and enhancing football opportunities within the community.

15.3   Considering this, it would be reasonable to consider the additional $46,000 funding towards the successful completion of the project.

16.     Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1   The Council’s decision will be conveyed to the club.

 

17.     Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7.5    Mayoral Relief Fund - June/July 2025

Decision Required

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Robyn Scherer, Executive Assistant and Advisor to the Mayor

Report Authorisers:

Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer

Report Number:

RCN25-07-5

 

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

1.1     To confirm the eligibility criteria for the Mayoral Relief Fund and the members of the panel who will be assigned to consider the applications to part of that fund.

1.2     To confirm membership of a separate Funding Panel to consider the $340,000 funding received from the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI). Note, this funding has been ring-fenced within the Mayoral Relief Fund account.

2.       Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1     As a result of the first severe weather event on 26/27 June 2025, and the resulting civil defence emergency, a Mayoral Relief Fund was set up to assist Tasman District residents.

2.2     A Mayoral Relief Fund is set up when a community is hit by a natural disaster to help individuals, families, marae or small organisations with immediate need.

2.3     A memorandum was sent to the Mayor and Councillors on 30 June 2025 (Attachment 1) asking for approval of the eligibility criteria and the nominated panel members to consider applications to the Mayoral Relief Fund. This was required to ensure that the fund could be activated and advertised in a timely manner.

2.4     The second severe weather event on 11 July 2025, which necessitated the declaration of a second civil defence emergency, resulted in the extension of the closing date for applications to the Mayoral Relief Fund to 10 August 2025.

2.5     Following the second event, funding of $340,000 was confirmed by the Ministry of Primary Industries.  However, MPI have specific requirements in terms of the required panel membership and eligibility criteria for this funding with any funding allocations aimed at the primary farming sector.

2.6     This report requests that the Council:

2.6.1 approves the intention of the memorandum circulated on 30 June 2025
(Attachment 1); and

2.6.2 approves the members of the Panel to consider applications to the Mayoral Relief Fund (outside the $340,000 funding from MPI), noting the inclusion of Nelson City Mayor, Nick Smith, and the Tasman District Council, Kaihautū, Renee Thomas, as the iwi representative.

2.6.3 Approves the following members of the separate Panel to consider applications to the funding of $340,000 from MPI – Tim Stevenson (Programme Director at MPI and nominated by MPI), Deputy Mayor Stuart Bryant and Federated Farmers President, Wayne Langford. All three have agreed to join the Panel.

3.       Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1.       receives the Mayoral Relief Fund - June/July 2025 report, RCN25-07-5; and

2.       approves the eligibility criteria for the Mayoral Relief Fund outlined in Attachment 1 to the agenda report as follows:

2.1    applicants must, at the time of their application, be experiencing financial hardship as a result of the emergency events on Thursday/Friday 26/27 June 2025 and Friday 11 July 2025; and 

2.2    priority will be given to those who are defined as owner/occupier or occupiers of property in the Tasman District at the time of the event; and

2.3    applicants are not eligible for funding assistance from any other source for the same items(s); and

3.       agrees that priority will be given to applications for:

3.1    items which are not covered by insurance or other funds (such as Work and Income New Zealand and the Natural Hazards Commission); and

3.2    extra financial burden/costs due to severe weather events not covered by insurance or other funds; and

3.3    family or personal crisis support which is not covered by insurance, another agency or fund (such as the Ministry of Social Development).

4.       approves the following members of the panel to consider applications to the Mayoral Relief Fund:

4.1    Mayor Tim King (Chair)

4.2    Mayor Nick Smith

4.3    Deputy Mayor Stuart Bryant

4.4    Councillor Christeen Mackenzie

4.5    Councillor Trindi Walker

4.6    Kaihautū Renee Thomas (representing iwi interests); and

5.       notes that the Ministry of Primary Industries will provide $340,000 funding assistance targeted specifically at the primary sector; and

6.       approves the following members of the separate panel to consider the funding of $340,000 targeted at the primary sector:

6.1    Tim Stevenson (Programme Director, MPI)

6.2    Deputy Mayor Stuart Bryant

6.3    Wayne Langford (Federated Farmers President) 

 

 

4.       Background / Horopaki

4.1     Two severe rainfall events affected the Tasman District on 26/27 June 2025 and again on
11 July 2025. As a result, two separate states of emergency were declared for the Tasman-Nelson region and the Tasman-Nelson Emergency Operations Centre was activated.

4.2     The Minister of Emergency Management and Recovery, Hon Mark Mitchell first visited the region on Sunday, 29 June 2025, immediately after the first event to survey the flood damage. During his visit the Minister announced that the New Zealand Government would donate $100,000 as a first step to set up the Mayoral Relief Fund. 

4.3     Since then, the Government, through the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI), has pledged another $340,000 of funding to be allocated via the Mayoral Relief Fund. This funding will be managed by a different panel comprising MPI staff and others (to be determined).

4.4     As at the time of writing this report, public donations (separate to the MPI funding) to the fund are $210,000.

4.5     Applications to the Mayoral Relief Fund close on 10 August 2025.

5.       Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1     A Mayoral Relief Fund was set up after the civil defence emergency event in the Tasman-Nelson region on 26/27 June 2025. A second emergency event occurred on 11 July 2025.

5.2     The Mayoral Relief Fund includes a set of parameters around eligibility for who may receive funding and requires a panel of suitable people who can make recommendations on what funding can be provided to those affected by the emergency.

5.3     This report formally confirms the eligibility criteria for the Mayoral Relief Fund and recommends the final panel members to consider applications to the fund.

5.4     A separate funding contribution to the Mayoral Relief Fund of $340,000 was provided by the Ministry of Primary Industries. This funding has separate criteria aimed at providing relief to the primary sector and requires a separate panel to consider applications. 

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

6.1     There are no financial or budgetary implications.

7.       Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1     The options are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

1.

Confirm approval of the eligibility criteria and the members of the panel to consider applications for the Mayoral Relief Fund June 2025.

Staff can continue to work on the Mayoral Relief Fund project and provide financial assistance to residents who qualify for that assistance. 

Nil

2.

Do not confirm approval of the eligibility criteria and the panel to consider applications for the Mayoral Relief Fund June 2025.

Nil

Significant extra staff and elected member time will be required to consider how we manage the fund, and the applications already received.

3.

Confirm the panel to consider applications to the MPI funding of $340,000.

Staff can continue to work on applications to the Mayoral Relief Fund and provide financial assistance that are specific to the primary sector. 

 

4.

Do not confirm the panel to consider applications to the MPI funding of $340,000.

Nil

The funding will not be provided.

7.2     Options 1 and 3 are recommended.

8.       Legal / Ngā ture 

8.1     Nil.

9.       Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

 9.1    Iwi involved during the civil defence emergency period have indicated that the Tasman District Council Kaihautū can represent their interests during the recovery period.  

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

10.1   There are no significant issues with this recommendation.

 

Issue

Level of Significance

Explanation of Assessment

1.

Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?

Low

A small number of people who have applied for funding assistance will be interested in the outcome of their application.

2.

Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?

Yes

The Mayoral Relief Fund will provide support to some residents and members of the primary sector who were affected by the severe rain events in Tasman District on 26/27 June 2025 and 11 July 2025.

3.

Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?

No

 

4.

Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)

No

 

5.

Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?

No

 

6.

Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?

No

 

7.

Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?

No

 

8.

Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?

No

 

9.

Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities? 

No

 

10.

Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?

No

 

 

11.     Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1   The details of the Mayoral Relief Fund have been actively communicated to residents of the Tasman-Nelson region via the Council’s communication channels.

11.2   Many applications have been received for the fund and all applications have been acknowledged.

11.3   Once applications are considered, Council staff will communicate the outcome (in confidence) with each resident who has applied to the Mayoral Relief Fund.

12.     Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1   There are no risks in approving this recommendation.

13.     Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1   Not applicable.

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

14.1   Not applicable.

15.     Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1   The Mayoral Relief Fund was set up to assist residents who experienced financial hardship because of the emergency events in the Tasman-Nelson region on 26/27 June 2025 and 11 July 2025.

15.2   Applications to the fund close on 10 August 2025.

15.3   The Mayoral Relief Fund Panel will consider each application against the eligibility criteria and the funds available and make recommendations for funding. 

16.     Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1   Applicants will be advised of the outcome of their application as soon as possible. 

16.2   A report will be presented to the Council at the conclusion of the Mayoral Relief Fund 2025 project.

 

17.     Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.

Memo - 30 June 2025 to Mayor and Councillors re Mayoral Relief Fund

54

  


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7.6    Waimea Water Limited - Final Statement of Intent 2025/2026

Decision Required

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Mike Drummond, Chief Financial Officer

Report Authorisers:

Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer

Report Number:

RCN25-07-6

 

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

1.1     To present the Waimea Water Limited (WWL) final Statement of Intent 2025/2026.

2.       Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1     The Council considered the draft Waimea Water Limited (WWL) Statement of Intent (SOI) at the Council meeting on 27 March 2025. At that meeting the Council resolved that the draft SOI met their expectations. That feedback was subsequently provided to the Company.

2.2     The Company had until 30 June 2025 to deliver their final SOI to the Shareholders for 2025/2026. The 2025/2026 SOI for WWL was received by Shareholders on 25 June 2025 (Attachment 1). The final SOI has been reviewed by staff for compliance with the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

2.3     The final SOI has been updated from the draft and contains the latest budget projections.
A number of line items have been updated for the latest estimates. The impact on the Council’s water charges is a minor reduction in Council costs in 2026 and 2027 with a rise in costs from 2028. There is a more significant change for Waimea Irrigators Limited (WIL) due to loan repayments and increasing interest costs. There are other minor editorial changes within the final SOI. The performance measures (Page 10) remain unchanged. 

2.4     The final SOI has been published on the WWL website (1 July 2025). Once the shareholders have formally agreed to the final SOI, it will be also made public on the Council’s website.

3.       Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1.       receives the Waimea Water Limited - Final Statement of Intent 2025/2026 RCN25-07-6; and

2.       notes the delivery of the Waimea Water Limited Final Statement of Intent 2025-2026 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) as required under the Local Government Act 2002; and

3.       notes Waimea Irrigators Limited, has agreed to the final Waimea Water Limited Statement of Intent 2025-2026 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

4.       notes that the final Waimea Water Limited Statement of Intent (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) will be made publicly available on the Councils’ website within one month, as required under the Local Government Act 2002.

4.       Background / Horopaki

1.1     WWL along with other CCOs is required to complete a SOI by 30 June each year. The draft SOI’s are required to be delivered to shareholders by 1 March each year. The final SOI is due to be delivered to shareholders by 30 June each year.

1.2     The WWL draft SOI was received by the shareholders on 28 February 2025. The SOI covered the period from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026. It also included draft financial estimates as of February 2025. The final SOI (Attachment 1) received 25 June 2025 includes updated financial estimates and some minor wording changes.

1.3     The cost to complete the dam was $211.2 million. The dam was commissioned in April 2024 and took five years to complete. The focus is now on managing operating costs.  

1.4     The SOI has been checked for compliance with the statutory requirements and there are no matters to bring to the Council’s attention.

5.       Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1     The impact of the revised financial estimates is mostly on water charges to WIL. The main driver of this is WWL borrowing cost and loan repayments now the final $5 million WWL/WIL water charges smoothing facility is in place. There is no material movement in water charges to the Council in 2025/26 or 2026/27. There is a larger variance of c$50,000-$60,000 in later years. These variances are within the expected range for the financial estimates. 

5.2     The company is currently transitioning through post construction and on to future operations.  There is also a focus on meeting the “with dam” requirements of the TRMP. The project final commissioning works costs are still being finalised

5.3     The SOI assumes a four-member board.  We are currently in discussions with WIL and WWL on the final size and composition of the board for this new phase of the dam’s operations.

5.4     There are no changes to the performance measures from the draft SOI.

5.5     The overall impact on 2025/26 water charges to the Council is a reduction of $9,000 from $2,977,000 to $2,968,000. There is an increase in water charges of $337,000 for WIL. The key driver for this change was the WIL funded repayments on the CIIL $23 million loan to WWL and updated interest rates following the April re-financing of WIL related debt.

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

6.1     There are no financial or budgetary implications arising from this decision. The costs of the review of the SOI and engagement with WWL and WIL are met from existing budgets.

6.2     The revised water charges from WWL are in line with the 2025/26 Annual Plan budget.

 

7.       Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1     The options are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

1.

To agree the final SOI and advise the Company and Waimea Irrigators Limited (WIL) as the other shareholder.

Acceptance of the SOI provides certainty to all parties on expectations for the coming year.

 

2.

To not agree to the final SOI and negotiate with WIL on the matters that the shareholders require the Board of WWL to address further in the SOI.

 

This approach is not recommended as the Council and WIL have previously advised WWL that the draft SOI meets their expectations. The major change from the draft has been the updates to the cost and time to complete estimates. The Council is unlikely to get support from the other shareholder for changes to the final SOI.

7.2     Option 1 is recommended.

8.       Legal / Ngā ture 

8.1     A Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) must have a SOI that complies with clauses
7 to 10 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

8.2     The principal objective of a CCO is set out in Section 59 (1) of the LGA.

8.3     SOIs must not be inconsistent with the CCO’s Constitution.

8.4     Draft SOIs must be delivered to the Council on or before 1 March each year. Shareholders may extend the deadline for a period (or periods) not exceeding one calendar month.

8.5     The LGA Schedule 8(2) requires the Board to consider any comments on the draft SOI that are made to it by 1 May and deliver a completed SOI to Shareholders on or before 30 June each year.

8.6     Section 65 (2) of the LGA requires the Council, as soon as practicable after receiving a SOI for a CCO, to agree to the SOI or, if it does not agree, to take all practicable steps under Clause 6 of Schedule 8 of the LGA to require the SOI to be modified.

8.7     If an agreement with the Board of WWL on the SOI is not reached, the shareholders will need to consider imposing a modification of the SOI by resolution of the shareholders using their powers under the LGA Schedule 8(6). This would be a last resort approach, as it would signal a breakdown in the relationship between the shareholders and the WWL Board.

9.       Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

 9.1    There is no direct iwi engagement in relation to this SOI. Ngāti Koata have a directorship on the board of WWL so have been engaged in the oversight and operation of the company.  The Ngāti Koata seat on the board was recently vacated. Staff will be engaging with Ngāti Koata to determine the best way forward to ensure their interests are protected.

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

10.1   The adoption of the SOI for WWL is of low significance to ratepayers. The SOI is consistent with arrangements entered into at financial close in December 2018. The project and the formation of WWL have been consulted on through formal engagement and consultation processes. WWL provide regular updates to the Council. Further engagement on the final SOI is not required.

10.2   As WWL shareholders, WIL has also considered the draft SOI. Given that WIL have provided some feedback to WWL but there is no change to the final SOI.

 

Issue

Level of Significance

Explanation of Assessment

1.

Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?

No

 

2.

Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?

No

 

3.

Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?

No

 

4.

Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)

Yes

 

5.

Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?

No

 

6.

Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?

No

 

7.

Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?

No

 

8.

 Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?

No

 

9.

Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities? 

No

 

10.

Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?

No

 

 

11.     Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1   The final WWL SOI was received in accordance with the statutory timeframe. The SOI meets statutory requirements. It is appropriate that having turned its mind to the matters in the final SOI that the Council agrees to the SOI.

12.     Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1   This is a routine decision to agree to a final SOI. There is no material risks associated with this decision.

13.     Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1   There are no climate change considerations in relation to this decision.

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

14.1   This SOI is consistent with the provisions in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan and contractual arrangements previously entered into.

14.2   The funding matters are also in alignment with the 2025/26 Annual plan financial estimates. 

15.     Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1   The final WWL SOI was received in accordance with the statutory timeframe. The SOI meets statutory requirements. It is appropriate that having turned its mind to the matters in the final SOI that the Council agrees to the SOI.

16.     Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1   Staff will communicate the Council’s decision to the other shareholder, WWL and WIL.

16.2   A link to the final SOI will be placed on the Council’s website within one month as per legislation and after receiving confirmation from WIL that they also agree to the final SOI.

 

17.     Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.

Waimea Water Limited Final Statement of Intent 2025/2026

61

  


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

A close-up of a dam

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A paper with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A paper with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A white paper with black text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


















Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7.7    Local Government Funding Agency Limited - Final Statement of Intent 2025-2028

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Mike Drummond, Chief Financial Officer

Report Authorisers:

Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer

Report Number:

RCN25-07-7

 

1.       Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1     The purpose of this report is to present the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) final Statement of Intent (SOI) 2025-2028.

2.       Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1.       receives the Local Government Funding Agency Limited - Final Statement of Intent 2025-2028 report, RCN25-07-7; and

2.       receives the letter to Shareholders from the Local Government Funding Agency (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

3.       notes the delivery of the Local Government Funding Agency final Statement of Intent 2025-2028 as required under the Local Government Act 2002; and

4.       agrees to the Local Government Funding Agency final Statement of Intent 2025-2028; and

5.       notes the final Local Government Funding Agency Statement of Intent (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) will be made publicly available on the Council’s website.

3.       Background \ Horopaki

3.1     On 29 November 2024, the Local Government Funding Agency Shareholders Council sent its Statement of Expectations to the LGFA. The Statement of Expectation covered areas of focus the Shareholders Council wished the Company to consider in developing its draft SOI.  

3.2     The draft SOI was received in February 2025 and presented to Tasman District Council on 27 March 2025. The draft SOI covered the period from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2028. 

3.3     A letter to shareholders from Mark Butcher, Chief Executive LGFA, was received by the Council on 27 June 2025 (Attachment 1) accompanying their final SOI for 2025-2028 (Attachment 2).

3.4     The letter to shareholders noted the following key points:

As with previous years, there remains uncertainty within the SOI forecasts relating to the amount of both council loans and LGFA bonds outstanding as this depends upon the magnitude and timing of council borrowing. The actual amount of borrowing will be influenced by the ability of councils to deliver on the capex projections in their Long Term Plans (“LTPs”), any cost increases as we well as the amount of Central Government assistance in funded capex delivery.

The Local Water Done Well reform programme (“LWDW”) is progressing with the next key milestone being the publication of the Water Services Delivery Plans for each council. There remains uncertainty for the sector (and LGFA) as to the amount, timing and transition of assets, debt and revenue to the new water organisations. We have assumed that any impact from LWDW will start to occur in the last few months of the 2025-26 FY. For our council borrowing and bond issuance forecasting purposes we have used the 2024-34 LTPs from councils (that incorporate water related activities). The only adjustment made is that we have assumed that LGFA won’t be lending to financially independent water CCOs such as Watercare.

We have made no assumptions regarding the impact to the SOI forecasts from the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme (“RAS”). LGFA has committed (subject to shareholder approval) to contributing towards the establishment and ongoing management of the RAS. It is too early to build any impact into the forecasts.

3.5     The changes made to the final SOI compared to the draft SOI received in February 2025 for comment were: 

We have added a performance target relating to the LGFA Future Director Programme.

Our forecasts for council borrowing are relatively unchanged with a $200 million increase in forecast council borrowing in 2025-26 FY that is offset by a $350 million reduction in 2026-27 FY. We have made no substantial change to our forecast LGFA bond issuance of $5.15 billion (2025-26 FY) $5.05 billion (2026-27 FY) and $5 billion (2027-28 FY).

The Net Interest Income forecast has reduced by $200k, $4.6 million and $6.2 million in the 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 fiscal years due to a change in the assumed interest rate path and issuance spreads.

Expenses are forecast to decrease by $1.2 million in 2025-26 FY, $1.1 million in 2026-27 FY and $1.8 million in 2027-28 FY on a reduced usage of the NZDM liquidity facility.

Forecast Net Operating Profit is forecast to increase in 2025-26 FY by $1 million but reduce by $3.4 million and $4.3 million in the 2026-27 and 2027-28 fiscal years.

4.       Conclusions

4.1     The LGFA has met the expectations of the Shareholders’ Council with the delivery of the draft and subsequent final Statement of Intent 2025-2028.

4.2     The staff and LGFA Shareholders Council recommendation is for Tasman District Council to agree to the LGFA final SOI 2025-2028. 

5.       Next Steps / Timeline

5.1     A link to the LGFA final SOI 2025-2028 will be placed on the Tasman District Council’s website.

 

6.       Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.

Local Government Funding Agency Letter to Shareholders about final Statement of Intent 2025-2028

93

2.

Local Government Funding Agency Final Statement of Intent 2025-2028

95

  


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 


A letter to a customer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

A group of people walking on a road

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A group of people walking in front of a sign

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A green and white text on a page

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a website

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A close-up of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text and images

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A page of a brochure

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text and green text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7.8    Chief Executive's Update

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer

Report Authorisers:

Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer

Report Number:

RCN25-07-8

 

1.       Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1     The purpose of this report is to provide an update on some key activity since the Chief Executive’s last report on 19 June 2025.

2.       Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1.       receives the Chief Executive's Update report, RCN25-07-10.

3.       Chief Executive Meetings and Activities included but were not limited to:

3.1     Following my last report, in addition to addressing various operational tasks, the number of engagements I have attended has been reduced due to the impacts created by the severe weather events between 27 June and 11 July 2025.

3.2     On 26 June 2025, I met with Paul Barker from Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) as part of our relationship strengthening and to talk regarding our progress on Local Waters Done Well.

3.3     On 26 June 2025, we held the Tasman District Council Candidate Information evening. This event was attended by those interested in standing for the Council or Community Board.

3.4     The first week of July we released the Pre-Election Report which can be found  on our website Elections 2025.

3.5     On 27 June 2025, I attended the Aspire Conference in Nelson, hosted by the Chamber of Commerce. Some of the key points and keynote speakers included Mark Bruce-Miller from Whenua Iti Outdoors and Juliet Ansell from Bragato Research Institute Bragato Research .

4.       Severe Weather Events June and July and State of Emergency

4.1     On 27 June 2025, the first extreme weather event hit our region/district, and a State of Emergency was declared. Throughout the next seven days, our focus was on the emergency response. We were fortunate to have surge capacity from other councils, notably, Bay of Plenty, Canterbury and Otago and our Nelson neighbours. The EOC was staffed 24 hours per day for the first few days then to day shifts throughout the following week due to another threat of more extreme weather.

4.2     That storm event did not eventuate, but unfortunately early July brought more extreme weather.

4.3     In response to the June events, several community engagement meetings took place to offer one place for affected community members to access multiple agencies in one place. The meetings were held at Wakefield, Tapawera, Riwaka, Ngātimoti and Brightwater.

Thank you to all the agencies that attended those meetings which include but not limited to:

·    Iwi

·    Ministry of Primary Industries

·    Ministry of Social Development

·    Police

·    FENZ

·    Rural Support Trust

·    Red Cross

·    National Emergency Management Agency

·    Inland Revenue

               

It was truly a community effort, that included staff from across Council, Ward Councillors, Community Board members, the Mayor and our Nelson MP, Rachael Boyack.

4.4     On 10 and 11 July 2025, the second severe weather event hit our district, impacting on several of the same areas and properties that had been affected by the first weather event. 

4.5     On Thursday, 10 July 2025 we moved out of ‘Recovery Phase’ and back into the ‘State of Emergency’ in anticipation of this impending event. Going early enabled us to quickly mobilise staff, contractors, the army, and rescue teams. The early evening of 11 July 2025 was tense, with hundreds responding as the weather hit, both in the Emergency Operations Centre and on the ground monitoring rivers, roads and evacuating people as needed.

4.6     I would like to formally recognise the exceptional contributions made by all involved throughout both events. My sincere appreciation extends to our staff, the Mayor and Councillors, CDEM and Nelson City Council personnel, Iwi, government agencies, contractors, volunteers, private businesses, and community members. I am personally grateful to everyone who has provided, or continues to provide, support to those affected by the flood events.

4.7     Between 27 June and 17 July 2025, Tasman District Council staff recorded a total of 7,000 hours which was worked in areas such as the EOC, field support, road clearance, river and stop bank assessments, and coordination with contractors. Customer service teams addressed hundreds of inquiries during this period. Many of these hours included work on weekends and nights.

4.8     The table below shows the hours, over three weeks which equates to around 26 person years of effort. Note: that this does not include volunteers, front line services staff, and other Tasman District Council staff hours

Tasman District Council Staff

7,000

Surge Staff from other councils

7,000

Contractors – Roads

35,000

Contractors – Waters

5,000

Rivers

35,000

Total

89,000

4.9     The Recovery Phase began on 17 July 2025. Staff, teams, and contracting partners are working in the field to restore operations. The Recovery Team is coordinating efforts to provide community support. We are contacting agencies to determine available funding and assistance for affected community members.

4.10   At the time of writing this report, we have been advised that we are expecting another significant weather event between 29 July 2025 and 1 August 2025.

 , ,  ,   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


5.       Legal Services Update

LGOIMA Update

5.1     The monthly numbers and Council’s proactive releases are published on the Council’s website - LGOIMAs and information of public interest | Tasman District Council.

5.2     LGOIMAs of public interest continue to be published on our website.

5.3     It is noted that in July 2025, while much of the team were responding to the severe weather event, more than 60 LGOIMAs were received in relation to LGNZ and ‘rate capping’. It is understood that this bulk request has been inspired by the Taxpayers Union.    

High Court decision

5.4     As previously advised, the High Court has released its decision on an appeal of an Environment Court decision to grant enforcement orders relating to a tiny home. The Council has now been awarded costs in both the High Court and Environment Court.

6.       People Management

Multi-Employer Collective Agreement (MECA)

6.1     Formal bargaining with the PSA union for a new Multi-Employer Collective Agreement (MECA) has been concluded, and at the time of writing, we are waiting on the outcome of the PSA membership ratification process. 

6.2     The parties to the MECA are the PSA Union, Tasman District Council, Nelson City Council and Marlborough District Council.

6.3     Our annual performance conversation (appraisal) process has also concluded, and any salary adjustments will be incorporated into the market movements (still subject to formal ratification) that formed part of this year’s MECA Agreement negotiations.

Human Resources Statistics

6.4     The annual human resources statistics for the year ending June 2025 are shown in attachment 8.1.

6.5     The headcount is 450 (Full Time Equivalent 421) and this has increased from last year’s count of 437 (Full Time Equivalent 407). A list of the new positions is included in the attachment.

6.6     Our annual turnover was 7.3% and the national average turnover (sourced from Lawson Williams NZ Turnover Survey released April 2024) for 2023 was 21.4%. A more recent comparison is currently not available.

6.7     Recruitment continues to remain steady, and we are currently at various stages of recruiting for approximately 13 vacancies which are a mix of existing and new positions.

7.       Te Kahui Hononga Update

Port Tarakohe new offices

7.1     The dawn blessing of the Port Tarakohe new building was expected to be held on Friday 4 July 2025, however due to heavy rain this was postponed till Friday 18 July 2025. The event had to be postponed a second time due to the devastation of the weather events.

7.2     The blessing and opening were officially held on Tuesday 22 July 2025.

Weather Events and Rahūi

7.3     Members of the Te Kahui Hononga team worked closely with iwi during the weather events and supported iwi whilst in the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) over the past few weeks.

7.4     Because of the first weather event, a Rahūi was put in place in the affected areas, and this was expected to be lifted as soon as the Council give the ‘all clear’ for affected rivers and coastline.

 

8.       Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.

Human Resources Statistics Attachment

115

  


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

A document with numbers and text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with a graph

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a graph

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

7.9    Mayoral Update Report  

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:

Tasman District Council

Meeting Date:

31 July 2025

Report Author:

Tim King, Mayor

Report Number:

RCN25-07-9

 

1.       Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1     It is going to take many years to recover from the severe rainfall events that slammed our District on 26/27 June 2025 and again on 11 July 2025. The damage around the District is just unbelievable and so many of our residents are hurting badly.

1.2     The response has consumed a huge amount of time for everyone. Huge thanks to our Tasman District Council staff and elected memberse along with our partners at the Nelson Tasman Civil Defence headquarters, the National Emergency Management Agency and Nelson City Council. Thanks also to the teams from outside the region who came here to help with the response.

1.3     There are so many people who have given up their time and resources to help; whether it be neighbours helping neighbours, local businesses providing support and getting into action or people from out of our region who have come here to help us. Thank you everyone.

1.4     The response to the Mayoral Relief Fund has been very humbling and I want to thank everyone who has donated – the next step is to allocate the funding received.

1.5     We have received several visits from Government representatives, Prime Minister Luxon, Acting Prime Minister, David Seymour, Ministers Mark Mitchell, Todd McClay, Mark Patterson and James Meager and our local West Coast-Tasman MP, Maureen Pugh. All had the opportunity to see at first hand the damage that had been caused and to speak with people who were affected.

1.6     Finally, my thanks to Deputy Mayor Bryant who stepped in to help on several occasions, including hosting the Minister of Rural Communities, Hon Mark Patterson who was here for the day on 18 July 2025 to visit several people whose properties were affected by the rain events.

1.7     Now the hard graft begins.

2.       Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1.       receives the Mayoral Update Report, RCN25-07-11.

3.       Local Government New Zealand

3.1     The Local Government New Zealand four-monthly report is attached (Attachment 1).

4.       IHL Board

4.1     In the absence of a Joint Shareholders Committee meeting within the required timeframe and under my delegated authority to vote the Council’s shares in IHL, I co-signed a shareholder’s resolution and a letter of appointment to extend the term for Gerrard Wilson to remain on the IHL Board until the next IHL Annual General Meeting.

4.2     The final structure of the Board will be determined by the Joint Councils Committee, post the local body elections.

5.       Mayoral Activity

5.1     My time since the two rain events on 26/27 June and 11 July 2025 has been focused on the civil defence emergency and the subsequent recovery efforts including twice-daily briefings with the various agencies.

5.2     There were numerous media interviews with TVOne, TV3, Radio New Zealand, the New Zealand Herald and the Nelson Mail.

5.3     Several Community Engagement Events in the aftermath of the weather events were held at Wakefield, Tapawera, Riwaka and Ngatimoti.

5.4     Commitments prior to the rain events included:

5.4.1    A meeting between the Mayors and Chairs of Te Waka a Maui iwi on 18 June 2025.

5.4.2    The quarterly catch-up with the Chair and Chief Executive of NRDA.

5.4.3    Rachel Boyack and I met for our regular catch up on 23 June 2025.

5.4.4    The farewell for Mike Scott, Chief Executive of Waimea Water Limited was held on 24 June 2025.

5.4.5    Renee Thomas and I met with Jayme Rae Anae, our Rangatahi Scholar, on 25 June 2025.

5.4.6    I enjoyed another visit with the tamariki at Waimea Kindergarten on 26 June 2025.

5.4.7    Chief Executive, Leonie Rae and I met with Mayor Nick Smith and Nelson City Council Chief Executive, Nigel Philpott on 8 July 2025 to discuss the Infrastructure Holdings Limited Board and the Nelson Museum Archives Research Facility.

5.4.8    The Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve Board met on 8 July 2025.

5.4.9    The Civil Contractors New Zealand Awards were held at the Rutherford Hotel on 18 July 2025 where the Council’s Environmental Award was presented to Downer.

 

6.       Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.

Local Government New Zealand - Four-monthly report

120

  


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

A blue and green cover

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text and a list

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a computer application

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text and blue text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A close-up of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A close-up of a letter

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A close-up of a letter

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A document with text on it

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


Tasman District Council Agenda – 31 July 2025

 

8       CONFIDENTIAL SESSION

8.1     Procedural motion to exclude the public

The following motion is submitted for consideration:

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

8.2     Penalty Remission Referral

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

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

 

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.