Agenda of Strategy Finance and Performance Committee

Strategy Finance and Performance Committee Agenda – 19 March 2026

7.2 Financial Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Strategy Finance and Performance Committee
Meeting Date:	19 March 2026
Report Author:	Paul Egan, Management Accounting Manager
Report Authorisers:	Sue McLean, Group Manager - Strategy & Finance; Matthew McGlinchey, Financial Strategy & Planning Manager
Report Number:	RSFP26-03-6

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 This report provides an update on key financial results for the seven months ended 31 January 2026.

1.2 The report also outlines recent trends in the balanced budget benchmark, capital expenditure, and maintenance expenditure.

1.3 Section 9 responds to questions raised in the equivalent report considered on 19 February 2026. Staff remain open to making further refinements where possible, noting that system limitations may restrict some changes.

1.4 Overall, financial results continue to track consistently with the position reported to the Committee at its meeting on 19 February 2026.

1.5 Key point updates are summarised below:

1.5.1 Severe weather events continue to have a material impact on the Council’s financial position. As at 31 January 2026, operating expenditure related to these events totalled $25.3 million, of which $23.0 million has been classified as maintenance. This excludes staff time. A separate report is being prepared for the Information‑Only Council meeting on 28 April 2026, which will provide an update on the emergency events, including financial and insurance matters.

1.5.2 Net debt has increased $23.8 million since 30 June 2025, largely reflecting expenditure associated with the severe weather events.

1.5.3 Capital expenditure year to date is $29.7 million, representing 31% of budget.

1.5.4 Additional maintenance and operations costs are expected in the Three Waters activities. This has previously been reported to the Information Forum of 11 February 2026, with further reporting on reactive maintenance and renewals scheduled for the Full Council meeting on 7 May 2026.

1.5.5 The balanced budget benchmark was 89.6% as at 31 January 2026, compared with a budgeted position of 94.72%.

1.5.6 No material insurance recoveries, relating to the emergency event, had been recognised as income as at 31 January 2026.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Strategy Finance and Performance Committee

1. receives the Financial Report Year to Date January 2026 report RSFP26-03-6.

3. Balanced Budget Benchmark

3.1 The balanced budget benchmark is a prescribed measure used to assess the operating performance of local authorities. It is used in preference to a traditional “profit and loss” measure because local government financial statements include a range of revenue items that are capital, one‑off, or non‑controllable in nature, which can obscure the Council’s underlying operating position.

3.2 The benchmark forms part of the suite of prudence measures set out in the Local Government (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014 and is reported alongside other benchmarks in the Council’s statutory planning and reporting documents. Consistent with the Council’s Financial Strategy, the benchmark is intended to be considered over the medium to long term, rather than as a point‑in‑time target, acknowledging that temporary deviations may occur due to timing effects, significant capital programmes, or exceptional events

3.3 The benchmark indicates the extent to which operating expenditure is funded from operating revenue after excluding items that do not relate to core operations, such as development contributions and revaluation movements. It should be read in conjunction with the full financial results, cashflow position, and debt measures to provide a balanced view of the Council’s financial sustainability.

Chart 1 | YTD Balanced Budget Benchmark

3.4 The year‑to‑date balanced budget benchmark is 89.57%, representing a slight decline from the position reported previously.

3.5 The balanced budget benchmark has been below 100% in several recent years. In some years, this position is also budgeted, reflecting deliberate funding decisions that are consistent with the Council’s Financial Strategy. These include instances where operating expenditure is funded from sources other than operating revenue, such as:

3.5.1 Loan funded Operating Expenses, primarily related to:

· Contributions to assets of Saxton Fields facilities, where the asset is constructed on land owned by Nelson City Council and recorded as an asset of Nelson City Council. While the expenditure contributes to long‑lived assets, the accounting treatment for Tasman District Council is as a grant or contribution, as the Council does not own the assets.

· Expenditure on the Tasman District Council Digital Innovation Programme, which is largely classified as operating expenditure due to cloud‑based accounting treatment requirements

· Expenditure on the Tasman Resource Management Plan.

· A grant contribution towards the new ARC facility

· Decisions to not fully fund depreciation in a given year, consistent with adopted funding and affordability settings

3.5.2 The use of Reserves, representing surplus funds carried forward from prior years to be used on expenditure in the current year.

3.6 To provide context and illustrate recent trends, the chart below presents the balanced budget benchmark as reported in the most recent Annual Report, updated to include year‑to‑date actuals and the current year budget.

3.7 The chart is presented on a consolidated basis and includes year‑end adjustments relating to the Council’s share of joint ventures and joint operations up to 24/25.

Chart 2 | Balanced Budget Benchmark – Comparison to Prior Years

3.8 The Council’s year‑to‑date balanced budget benchmark is a provisional position and does not include year‑end adjustments associated with joint ventures and joint operations. In the previous two financial years, the inclusion of these adjustments at year end did not result in a material change to the benchmark outcome.

3.9 The most likely factor that may improve the final year‑end benchmark position is the reclassification of certain unplanned repair expenditure arising from severe weather events to unplanned capital expenditure, following the completion of impairment testing. Any such adjustments will be reflected in the year‑end financial statements.

4. Financial Performance

4.1 Table 1 | Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense

Development and financial contributions

4.2 Development and financial contributions, which largely support future growth, continue to track below the year‑to‑date (YTD) budget by $3.8 million. This variance reflects the impact of current economic conditions on development activity.

Operating subsidies and grants

4.3 Operating subsidies and grants are $14.8 million above the YTD budget and exceed the full-year budget of $6.8 million. This increase is primarily driven by additional funding from government agencies, including Waka Kotahi, MBIE, and MfE, largely in response to the severe weather events. The majority of this variance reflects accounting accruals rather than cash received to date.

Capital Subsidies

4.4 Capital subsidies are $4.2 million below the YTD budget. This variance reflects delays in MBIE-funded Lower Motueka River works and disruptions to planned roading projects, and thus the Waka Kotahi subsidy, caused by weather events.

Fees and charges

4.5 Fees and charges are tracking at 63% of the annual budget at $1.5 million ahead of YTD budget. This is driven by Resource Consents, Solid Waste and Industrial water supply exceeding budget. There are also timing impacts from areas where there are annual charges that have been billed for the year in Environmental Services.

4.6 While some areas are tracking above YTD budget, many have a seasonal or annual aspect to their income, and it cannot be assumed that this favourable variance will continue to grow.

Other Gains

4.7 Other gains relate to the sale of ETS credits ($3.0 million), approved by the Council after the adoption of the annual plan 2025/2026.

Finance Expense (net)

4.8 Net finance expenses are at 51% of full year budget at 58.3% of the way through the year. Some joint venture related interest costs are expected and budgeted at end of financial year.

Employee related expense

4.9 Employee costs are aligned with budget expectations as at 31 January 2026. Senior management continue to actively manage staffing levels and the timing of vacancy appointments.

Maintenance expense

4.10 For reporting clarity, this report separates routine operational maintenance from emergency event‑related costs (refer Table 2).

4.11 Emergency maintenance expenditure to date totals $23.0 million. The externally funded component of this expenditure is still being finalised, as confirmation of amounts is taking time, particularly where multiple external funders are contributing to the same affected assets. In the interim, the unfunded balance is being financed through debt. Net recovery of these costs is planned through the proposed recovery rate.

4.12 Excluding weather-related activity, maintenance expenditure remains below budget and is expected to continue to do so. Water Supply and Wastewater activities, however, continue to experience elevated reactive maintenance costs and are forecast to exceed their respective budgets. Reactive maintenance budgets have been increased in the 2026/2027 draft Annual Plan to maintain asset value and service performance.

4.13 Table 2 | Maintenance Expenses

5. Capital Expenditure

5.1 The capital works programme is developed using a planning assumption that, on average, around 10% of approved capital projects are not fully delivered within a financial year. This reflects the inherent uncertainty in large and complex capital programmes, including consent timing, procurement, weather, and external dependencies. This assumption reduces the level of forecast borrowing required and, in turn, limits debt servicing costs and the need to set rates to fund borrowing that may not ultimately be drawn

5.2 Year‑to‑date capital expenditure totals $29.7 million against a planned budget of $95.6 million, representing 31% of the full‑year budget. As part of normal capital programme management, staff are reviewing project sequencing and priorities within the current year programme to develop a refined reforecast and a more accurate spend profile. In parallel, a technical review of emergency‑related expenditure is underway, which may result in some costs currently recorded as maintenance being reclassified as capital expenditure following impairment assessment. Any updated forecasts will be reported to the Committee in a future financial update

5.3 A summary of the budget, actual spend by activity is provided in Table 3.

Table 3 | Capital Expenditure

5.4 The following chart provides context on how capital programme delivery typically profiles through the financial year and how the Council actively manages delivery, borrowing, and affordability risks.

Chart 4 | Historical Capital Expenditure Trend (Excluding JV’s)

* Note: “Full Budget” refers to the Annual Plan budget, including approved carry‑forwards and any additional amounts or changes approved by Council during the financial year.

5.5 Over the five‑year period shown in the chart above, the average proportion of the full capital budget delivered within each financial year is approximately 75%. The remaining ~25% is predominantly timing-related underspend that is carried forward into the next financial year as approved carry-forwards to complete the same projects.

5.6 A summary of capital programme management is outlined below.

5.6.1 As at 31 January 2026, capital expenditure represents 31% of the full‑year programme. This result reflects both the timing of project delivery and the concentration of expenditure later in the financial year for a number of large projects, rather than a uniform slowdown across the programme.

5.6.2 While the programme’s unconstrained technical forecast indicates a potential year‑end spend of $83.6 million against a full‑year budget of $95.6 million, the Executive Leadership Team has endorsed a reduced working capital delivery envelope of $70 million for the current year. This envelope reflects assessed deliverability and will be used as the basis for programme prioritisation, borrowing assumptions, and financial management.

6. Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet)

6.1 Table 4 | Statement of Financial Position

6.2 Trade and other receivables are higher at 31 January 2026 predominantly due to the timing of quarterly rates billing.

7. Net Debt and External Debt

7.1 As at 31 January 2026, the Council’s total debt was $408.0 million, compared with $376.4 million at 30 June 2025. Net debt was $295.0 million, up from $271.3 million at 30 June 2025. This remains below the net debt level of $305 million projected in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

7.2 Pass‑through loans relate to shareholder advances to Waimea Water Limited to fund the Waimea Community Dam. These loans are excluded from the Council’s net debt calculation, as the associated cashflows are passed through to the Council‑controlled entity. However, they are included when assessing the Council’s total borrowings from the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) and compliance with LGFA covenants.

7.3 Commercial paper is a short‑term funding tool used to manage liquidity and timing differences within the financial year. The use of commercial paper is consistent with the Council’s Treasury Management Policy and supports prudent cashflow and debt management without increasing long‑term debt commitments.

7.4 Linked deposits reflect the pre‑funding of the Council’s April 2026 LGFA loan repayments and form part of the Council’s approved treasury management strategy. These deposits temporarily increase gross debt but reduce refinancing risk and support liquidity management.

7.5 Table 5 below provides a breakdown of net debt, including the impact of pass‑through loans and linked deposits.

Table 5 | Net debt breakdown

8. Debtors/Receivables

8.1 Rates receivables are consistent with the same period in the 2024/2025 year after accounting for rates income increases. The balance primarily reflects the timing of this report. Other receivables are higher than the prior year, largely due to the recognition of subsidy and grant income related to recent weather events.

8.2 The receivables summary is set out below:

Table 6 | Debtors / Receivables

8.3 As noted earlier in the report the timing of the quarterly rates billing leads to a larger rates receivable in January. Other receivables includes $9.1 million of Waka Kotahi weather event related funding that has been agreed.

9. Councillor Queries at 19^th February Equivalent Report

9.1 At the meeting held on 19 February, councillors raised a number of questions and requests for further information. Staff undertook to consider these matters and report back where practicable. This section provides an update on those items.

9.2 Some requests are constrained by the capability of the Council’s current financial system, which has been in place since the 1990s. While the Modern Finance programme is intended to address these limitations, the transition to a new system is complex, costly and will take time. Certain information cannot currently be produced due to the structure of the general ledger and the way the system (MagiQ Enterprise) captures and records data.

9.3 The following actions have been completed in response to councillor queries:

9.3.1 A historic year‑to‑date capital expenditure comparison for the same period in the previous financial year has been included.

9.3.2 We have added a five-year capital expenditure graph that shows where the current year compares with previous years spend.

9.3.3 Development contributions have been clarified. Contributions are payable once a Section 222 certificate is issued and ultimately fund capital expenditure. At present, receipts are primarily used to reduce development‑related debt, as the development contribution balance is in deficit due to the pace of growth in the district. By the end of 2033/34, development‑related debt is expected to exceed $100 million. This debt is forecast to be repaid over time as development contributions are collected, reflecting the Council’s growth profile.

9.3.4 The councillors are provided financial results regularly through the Strategy, Finance and Performance Committee. This is where monthly financial results are best sourced.

9.3.5 A question was asked around lower development contributions this year and how that impacts future years. Lower development contribution revenue in the current year will be reflected in updated budget projections and considered as part of future planning cycles.

9.4 Other requests cannot currently be progressed without significant changes to the general ledger structure or the implementation of an enhanced financial system or are simply not appropriate.

9.4.1 A request for cost and revenue reporting by ward, community, or neighbourhood cannot be supported at this time. Even with a modernised system, allocating costs at this level would be complex and would require careful consideration as part of any future system design

9.4.2 It was suggested that known future commitments be incorporated into the net debt cap calculation. Net debt is a point‑in‑time measure reflecting the Council’s cash position. Including commitments without also including known future income would not provide a balanced or meaningful measure. The new debt calculation in the Annual Plan is intended to act as a proxy for these future inflows and outflows, including commitments.

9.4.3 For similar reasons, net debt calculations are not produced on a monthly basis. Operating revenue is received unevenly throughout the year, and the information required to calculate the dynamic net debt cap is most appropriately assessed at year end.

9.4.4 A request was made to provide the Net Debt Headroom with regard to the both the Treasury policy limit of a dynamic 160% and the LGFA requirements for the current year. This ratio is calculated on a full revenue figure. We do not have this till year end so the ratio or graph presented would be meaningless if calculated during the year.

10. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Strategy Finance and Performance Committee Agenda – 19 March 2026

7.3 Long-Term Plan Assumption - Population Projection

Decision Required

Report To:	Strategy Finance and Performance Committee
Meeting Date:	19 March 2026
Report Author:	Geoff Everitt, Senior Policy Advisor – Data Analysis
Report Authorisers:	Sue McLean, Kaiwhakahaere ā Rōpū – Te Pae Rautaki Ahumoni \| Group Manager - Strategy & Finance
Report Number:	RSFP26-03-4

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

1.1 Staff seek approval of the population growth assumption for the Long-Term Plan (LTP) 2027-2037.

1.2 The decision sought now is for the Committee to approve the population growth assumption (High) that will be used to anchor the Growth Model update and Long-Term Plan 2027–2037.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Staff recommend adopting the High population growth scenario to guide the Growth Model update and Long-Term Plan 2027–2037, as it provides a more cautious basis for identifying potential long‑term infrastructure, regulatory, and land‑supply risks.

2.2 The High scenario is expected to provide a more risk‑aware planning foundation if higher growth occurs.

2.3 The executive leadership team (ELT) endorsed the use of the High projection on 17 February 2026, following consideration of a memo presented to it.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Strategy Finance and Performance Committee

1. receives the Long-Term Plan Assumption - Population Projection RSFP26-03-4; and

2. approves the high population assumption as the basis for the growth model and related planning in the Long-Term Plan 2027-2037.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 A population assumption is required so staff can complete the Growth Model update and ensure supply and demand modelling is ready to inform subsequent LTP workstreams, including infrastructure, land‑use, and financial planning.

Timely endorsement is essential to keep Growth Model outputs on schedule for May 2026, allowing them to feed into wider LTP development without delay.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 For LTP purposes, analysis has focused on the Medium, High, and Hybrid population scenarios. All three track similarly in the early years; however, by 2037 the difference between Medium and High is approximately 900 dwellings and 3,600 residents, widening further over the longer term. The Hybrid scenario sits between the two.

5.2 The High scenario aligns with the assumption used in the previous LTP. Although growth has slowed recently, reflected in the decline in building consent applications, long‑term trends, including historic population variability, have more closely tracked the High projection. The Hybrid scenario reflects current short‑term slowdown more directly but introduces additional modelling complexity.

5.3 The demographer advised that growth is statistically most likely to follow the Medium projection but noted that planning decisions should incorporate wider policy and infrastructure considerations. Historically, national projections have tended to be too conservative (i.e. underestimated growth).

5.4 Tasman has experienced large year‑to‑year swings in both dwelling and population growth, with periods of rapid increase followed by sharp slowdowns. Because of this volatility, short‑term movements may give only limited guidance for long‑term planning.

5.5 Selecting a higher projection reduces the risk of under‑estimating long‑term demand, particularly for long‑life infrastructure where capacity constraints are costly to correct. Lower‑than‑expected growth can be adjusted for through future LTP cycles with comparatively limited impact. This decision sets only a planning assumption and does not approve or alter any projects, funding, or levels of service.

5.6 Councillors asked whether selecting a Medium or High population assumption would influence longer‑term rates movements. Staff cannot advise how the two assumptions will affect the final rates requirements for the LTP 2027–2037, as financial modelling is still underway and depends on multiple interacting factors.

5.7 In principle, however, the total revenue requirement in any given year is divided across the number of rating units. If growth is higher, the same total revenue requirement is spread across more rating units, which has a moderating effect on the average rates increase. Over a 10‑year period, the Medium and High scenarios differ by approximately 3.48 percentage points in projected dwelling growth, and this difference represents the scale of additional rating units over which future revenue requirements would be allocated. This effect is only one component of overall rates movements and will be assessed in more detail through the LTP financial modelling.

5.8 Staff also used AI‑assisted analysis to explore whether councils experiencing higher population growth tend to have higher rates than lower‑growth councils. The findings were inconclusive and did not show a consistent relationship. Rates movements are influenced by multiple factors beyond growth alone, including development timing, density, funding gaps, and the sequencing of infrastructure investment.

5.9 Projections do not determine whether a council is “high growth”; this is based on actual population and development trends, and there is no formal criterion for defining high growth status. Tasman has experienced what is commonly regarded as high growth for at least two decades and continues to maintain comparatively low rates relative to the wider sector. Projections are planning tools used to understand possible future demand, and risks for rates exist under both under‑ and over‑estimating growth.

Figure 1 - Annual population change % historic, projected, and historic average

Figure 2 - Total population historic and projected

Table 1 - Historic and projected population growth 10-year average

Table 2 - Historic and projected dwelling growth 10-year average

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

6.1 This decision has no direct financial impact. It may indirectly influence long‑term revenue and expenditure forecasting as growth assumptions flow into later stages of the LTP programme.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the High scenario	Provides a resilient planning basis for long‑life infrastructure, identifying the risk of under‑investment and future capacity shortfalls. Aligns with Tasman’s longer term growth trends, which have tracked closer to the High projection. Is considered to support LGA obligations to plan for the long term and manage risk. Identifies the likelihood of community impacts arising from higher‑than‑expected growth without sufficient infrastructure. Consistent with emerging central government signals to plan for higher growth. Rates and debt settings can be adjusted in future LTP cycles if actual growth is lower than projected.	May indicate a need for infrastructure to be timed earlier than ultimately required if growth slows. Could create perception of over‑planning or over‑estimating growth in the short term. Higher growth rate could indicate earlier infrastructure needs during preliminary modelling, which could place pressure on early financial forecasts. Building Consent data shows a sharp decline in building consents applications.
2.	Approve the Hybrid scenario	Recent declines in building consent applications indicate lower dwelling growth in the short term, and the Hybrid scenario better reflects this early‑period slowdown. After the initial years, the Hybrid trajectory transitions toward a rate that more closely matches Tasman’s longer‑term growth behaviour. By applying the Medium projection in the early years, the Hybrid scenario reduces the chance of signalling infrastructure needs earlier than necessary during the first one to two LTP years. Switching to the High rate for later years still provides visibility of potential long‑term infrastructure pressures if higher growth occurs. It avoids the binary choice between Medium and High by recognising both current market signals and the district’s longer‑term trend, which may reduce the likelihood of short‑term financial pressure.	Using two different growth rates over the projection period can introduce additional complexity for modelling. The rationale for using a transitional projection may require more explanation to stakeholders compared with a single scenario. Central government are trending toward planning for higher growth; the Hybrid scenario may be seen as less aligned with that direction. Applying the Medium rate early could delay the identification of future infrastructure requirements if high growth resumes sooner than expected.
3	Approve the Medium scenario	Aligns with the demographer’s statistical assessment of the most likely population trajectory. Aligns with sort term growth expectations based on building consent applications being received. May indicate a lower need for infrastructure timing and capital expenditure assumptions if growth moderates. Could be perceived as a more conservative or “right‑sized” approach to current economic conditions	Increases the risk of under‑estimating future demand, particularly for long‑life infrastructure that is costly and slow to expand once constrained. Higher‑than‑expected growth can lead to community impacts that are more difficult and costly to address than adjusting for lower growth over time. Does not fully reflect recent or long-term historic trends, which exceed the higher projection. Provides less alignment with emerging central government direction to plan for higher growth. May require earlier corrective action if growth exceeds expectations.
4	Approve the Low scenario	Lower assumed demand in the early years reduces the likelihood of identifying infrastructure upgrades earlier than ultimately required during preliminary modelling. Can signal caution in the current economic environment by avoiding assumptions that may appear optimistic or out of step with recent slowdown. Lower projected growth may reduce initial pressures on debt, funding pathways, or capital programme assumptions during early modelling stages.	If higher growth resumes, as has occurred historically, this scenario may result in infrastructure capacity constraints that are costly and slow to correct. Under‑projecting growth can push key investments too far into the future during modelling, increasing later pressure on levels of service, compliance, and financial planning. Diverges from national signals encouraging councils to adopt more risk‑aware and future‑proofed growth planning approaches.

7.2 Option 1 High growth scenario is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The decision is primarily governed by the Local Government Act 2002, which sets the requirements for LTP assumptions, prudent financial management, and decision‑making processes. The Resource Management Act 1991, particularly the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, is also relevant as growth projections inform long‑term land‑use and infrastructure planning. No other legislation directly affects or constrains this assumption‑setting decision.

8.2 The following provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 were considered particularly relevant to this decision, and the recommendation has been assessed for alignment with them: the purpose and principles in sections 10 and 14, the financial management obligations in section 101, the decision‑making and engagement requirements in sections 76–82, and the risk‑management requirements for LTP assumptions in Schedule 10, clause 17. These sections guided the assessment to support prudent, risk‑aware long‑term planning.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Engagement with iwi has not been undertaken and is not proposed as this decision sets an internal planning assumption and does not directly affect land, water, cultural values, or levels of service. In line with the LGA 2002 requirement for engagement to be proportionate to significance, iwi engagement is not required at this stage, with any future implications addressed through subsequent LTP or statutory processes.

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

10.1 The overall significance of the decision has been assessed as low to moderate

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	Some level of interest may arise from stakeholders who follow growth and planning matters, but the decision is technical and does not directly change services or rates at this stage. It may attract attention from specific stakeholders, but is not expected to be widespread.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	The decision influences long‑term planning assumptions but does not directly change services, assets, or financial settings at this stage. Any effects on community well‑being would occur indirectly through later LTP decisions, so impacts are possible but not immediate or substantial.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The decision sets an assumption for planning purposes only. Any long‑term effects depend on later LTP decisions, so the duration of impact from this specific decision is limited.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The decision informs planning for Council’s strategic infrastructure assets but does not alter, dispose of, or reprioritise any specific asset at this stage. The link is indirect, so the level of significance is medium rather than high.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	The decision does not change any levels of service. It only sets a planning assumption, so no substantial service impacts arise at this stage.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	The decision does not directly change financial settings. Any effect on debt or rates would occur later through LTP processes, so the immediate financial impact of this decision is low.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	NA	The decision does not involve any sale of shareholdings in a CCO or CCTO.
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	NA	The decision does not involve entering into any private sector partnership or contracting out any Council activity.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	NA	The decision does not involve entering into or exiting from any group of activities.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	While the growth projection will inform future infrastructure planning for water services, this decision does not itself change any water, wastewater or stormwater activities, nor does it trigger specific Te Mana o te Wai obligations. Current water sector reforms do not materially affect or change the nature of this assumption‑setting decision.

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Communication to date has been internal and with Nelson City Council (NCC) officers, including discussions with engineering, planning, ELT and other staff who rely on the Growth Model for LTP inputs. Staff have also engaged with NCC to understand whether there is an opportunity to align approaches.

11.2 NCC currently propose using the Medium scenario for their LTP and the High scenario for other planning purposes, reflecting the demographer’s advice that actual growth is statistically more likely to track near the Medium projection. Council staff have considered this advice in the context of Tasman’s infrastructure risk profile and planning requirements and have formed their recommendation accordingly.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The overall risk is assessed as medium and relates to the planning consequences of selecting a higher or lower population projection.

12.2 Adopting the High scenario carries the risk that actual growth may be lower than projected, which could indicate infrastructure timing earlier than necessary and create perceptions of over‑planning. Any implications arising from this assumption can be addressed through later stages of this LTP or future LTP and annual plan cycles.

12.3 Not adopting the High scenario increases the possibility of under‑estimating long‑term demand, which is difficult and costly to correct once infrastructure constraints emerge. This risk profile has greater potential implications for levels of service, compliance, and financial sustainability.

12.4 Mitigation includes ongoing monitoring of growth, regular reassessment through LTP cycles, annual plan cycles, and refinement of infrastructure and financial assumptions as new information becomes available.

12.5 Revising the population assumption at a later stage will require re‑work for the Growth Model and for any Council outputs that rely on it, which may in turn delay delivery of the LTP programme.

12.6 If Nelson City Council adopts a lower projection, there is a possibility of divergence in long‑term assumptions. This does not materially alter the assessment undertaken for Tasman. However, if higher growth occurs in Nelson without corresponding provision, demand may shift toward Tasman, with potential implications for infrastructure planning and cost‑allocation, noting that cross‑boundary demand could arise under any scenario if actual growth exceeds local provision.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

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

13.2 This decision will have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions. This decision will have no impact on resilience to climate change and the ability of the Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change.

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

14.1 This decision supports the development of the Long‑Term Plan by establishing a planning assumption required under the Local Government Act 2002. The population projection informs, but does not determine, subsequent work on infrastructure, financial, and land‑use planning. Any future implications for levels of service, infrastructure programmes, or financial settings will be considered through later LTP processes or other statutory planning documents, including asset management plans, the Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy, and the Tasman Resource Management Plan.

14.2 The decision is within the delegation of the Strategy, Finance and Performance Committee, which is responsible for oversight of LTP preparation and underlying assumptions

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The High population projection is considered to provide a sound planning assumption for the development of the Long‑Term Plan and the associated Growth Model update. It offers a resilient basis for identifying future infrastructure and land‑use pressures while allowing any financial implications to be addressed through later LTP processes. The decision does not commit Council to any specific programme or funding pathway and can be refined in future planning cycles as new information becomes available.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Growth Model outputs are on schedule for May 2026, allowing them to feed into wider LTP programme.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Population Projection Technical Options Analysis	27
2.⇩	Infometrics Tasman projection report	40

Strategy Finance and Performance Committee Agenda – 19 March 2026

7.4 Adoption of Tasman Inundation Practice Note

Decision Required

Report To:	Strategy Finance and Performance Committee
Meeting Date:	19 March 2026
Report Author:	Paula Hammond, Policy Planner - Natural Resources
Report Authorisers:	Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager; Sue McLean, Group Manager - Strategy & Finance
Report Number:	RSFP26-03-1

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

1.1 This report seeks the Council’s approval to adopt the Tasman Inundation Practice Note (2026) (Attachment 1), incorporating minor amendments following community engagement in late 2025/early 2026.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Strategy and Policy Committee (18 September 2025 meeting) approved release of the draft Tasman Inundation Practice Note (2025) for community engagement (RSPC25-09-10).

2.2 The Inundation Practice Note (IPN) is non-statutory guidance that provides a standardised methodology to determine minimum ground and/or building platform levels for development exposed to inundation (freshwater and coastal). It assists implementation of the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA), the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP), and Building Act 2004 (BA).

2.3 During November 2025 to February 2026, Council sought community feedback and five responses were received. Staff response to the feedback and recommended amendments to the IPN are summarised in this report, with the full feedback table presented in Attachment 2.

2.4 The feedback received was constructive and focused primarily on clarifying the application of the IPN, particularly in relation to minor structures, access and curtilage considerations, hazard notices, and the interpretation of national guidance. There were no objections to the overall methodology.

2.5 A copy of the Tasman Inundation Practice Note 2026 for adoption is provided in Attachment 1 with the recommended amendments included. Details of the recommended amendments, including the specific locations within the IPN where the changes have been incorporated, are provided in Attachment 2.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Strategy Finance and Performance Committee

1. receives the report Adoption of Tasman Inundation Practice Note RSFP26-03-1; and

2. approves the recommended amendments to the Tasman Inundation Practice Note in response to community engagement (as set out in Attachment 2), noting that all requested amendments have been incorporated in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

3. adopts the Tasman Inundation Practice Note 2026, Attachment 1 to the agenda report.

4. Background / Horopaki

What is the Inundation Practice Note?

4.1 The IPN was originally developed jointly with Nelson City Council (NCC) and adopted in 2019 to provide a consistent methodology for determining appropriate minimum ground and/or building platform levels for development in areas at risk of seawater and/or freshwater inundation. It is non-statutory guidance that supports the TRMP, RMA and the administration of the BA.

4.2 Since adoption, central government guidance and local technical datasets have been updated and evolved. Tasman has progressively implemented these updates in consenting practice, as the new guidance and data has become available.

4.3 Tasman and Nelson staff had been working since mid-2022, toward completing a review and update of the 2019 IPN. However, Nelson deferred decisions on reviewing and updating the IPN to this triennium. Tasman prepared a standalone Tasman IPN (2025) to align the document with current practice, national guidance and updated technical data.

4.4 The Strategy and Policy Committee (18 September 2025 meeting) approved an update of the 2019 Inundation Practice Note independently of Nelson City Council and approved the draft Tasman Inundation Practice Note (2025) for community engagement and feedback (RSPC25-09-10).

Engagement Undertaken

4.5 Public feedback on the draft Tasman IPN (2025) was sought from November 2025 to February 2026 through Council’s communications channels (Shape Tasman, Newsline, social media) with targeted outreach to Post Settlement Governance Entities, the development and building sector, and planners via emails and sector newsletters.

4.6 Key documents, including a summary of the proposed changes, and a track change version of the IPN were available on Shape Tasman to support feedback. A video offered a summary of the IPN and provided a practical example of how the IPN could be applied.

4.7 Five submissions were received with the key themes and responses summarised in section 5 below, with a detailed assessment set out in Attachment 2.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The community engagement process from November 2025 to February 2026 provided Council with valuable insights from a range of stakeholders, including two lawyers on behalf of a developer and landowners, one consultancy representative, and two members of the public. While the volume of submissions was modest, the feedback received was constructive and focused primarily on clarifying the application of the IPN, particularly in relation to minor structures, access considerations, hazard notices, and the interpretation of national guidance. The volume of feedback received is consistent with the low to medium level of interest anticipated for this technical document and is on par with the three responses received via the 2019 IPN consultation.

5.2 Attachment 2 details staff responses and recommended amendments to the IPN for each individual submission point.

Key feedback points and staff recommendations

5.3 Submitters sought greater clarity on how the IPN applies in practice, particularly for minor structures, hazard notices, and access or curtilage requirements. They noted issues such as small, unconsented sheds located in low‑lying areas, uncertainty around when Building Act hazard notices apply, and how to interpret MBIE guidance. Staff recommend minor clarifications to Sections 1.1 and 6 of the IPN, including cross‑references to MBIE diagrams and guidance. No changes are recommended where the Tasman Resource Management Plan, Land Development Manual or national direction addresses the feedback points within these higher-order documents.

5.4 Feedback also touched on implementation concerns, including the immediate effect of higher platform levels, cost implications, the treatment of limited‑duration or trigger‑based consents, and alignment with Nelson City Council. While recognising these issues, staff note that statutory obligations to manage inundation hazards already exist, and phased implementation of mitigation measures is not required as the requirement in some instances to have higher platform levels is already being applied through building and resource consents.

5.5 A further set of comments related to technical matters such as the application of MfE guidance’s ‘planning categories’, uncertainty in use of national vertical land movement data, and adaptive pathways planning. Staff comments confirmed that the IPN reflects national guidance, the NZ SeaRise data remains the best information available, and no local vertical land movement work is planned at this time. No changes are recommended on these points.

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

Review and feedback process

6.1 Costs for the update to the IPN and community engagement were met from existing staff and operational budgets. No additional funding is required to complete the updated Tasman IPN 2026.

Financial implications for the community

6.2 The IPN sets out the methodology for determining minimum ground and building platform levels to reduce the risk of inundation. Meeting these levels may involve raising land or, in some cases, elevating buildings on piles. While such measures add to construction costs, they need to be weighed against the potentially much higher costs of repairs and recovery if a property is inundated.

6.3 There is also a potential financial cost to Council if, following an inundation event, it is found that Council did not follow national guidance or use the most up‑to‑date information; applying the IPN helps avoid this potential liability. Having the IPN 2026 in place therefore reduces future financial risk to Council by ensuring that decisions are based on current national guidance and the best available data, providing a clear and defensible basis for managing inundation hazards.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Agree to the staff recommended changes and adopt the amended IPN (see Attachment 2) as the IPN 2026.	This option shows that submitter views have been considered by staff and, where appropriate, amendments have been made to the IPN. Provides a clear and defensible basis for decision-making and reduces Council’s legal and reputational risk.	Not every submission point has been accepted. Some submitters may therefore be disappointed that their suggestions were not given effect to in the amended IPN. However, this is part of the feedback process, and not all suggestions will be deemed appropriate based on staff technical advice.
2.	Adopt the draft IPN 2025 as the final IPN without amendment, other than the amendments necessary to change the IPN from a “draft” to the “final” IPN.	Provides a clear and defensible basis for decision-making and reduces Council’s legal and reputational risk.	The Council will be open to criticism for not listening to the community’s views through the public consultation process, particularly when some valid feedback was provided that can improve the final version of the IPN.
3.	Do nothing and remain with the 2019 Joint Nelson Tasman IPN	There are no advantages with this option.	The 2019 IPN contains outdated data and is inconsistent with national guidance. Misalignment with current TDC practice of applying most update-to-date data to inform building platform and/or land levels. Applying the 2019 IPN may understate the inundation risk, in particular exposing low-lying coastal developments to inundation earlier than expected (due to not taking into account national guidance on updated sea-level rise data and vertical land movement). Does not provide a clear and defensible basis for decision-making and increases Council’s legal and reputational risk.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The IPN is non-statutory guidance that supports implementation of the RMA, the BA, and relevant polices and rules in the TRMP. Aligning the IPN with current national guidance and the best available information provides a clear and defensible basis for decision-making and reduces Council’s legal and reputational risk.

8.2 The update to the IPN has been prepared, and feedback sought and considered in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

8.3 On 15 January 2025, the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards (NPS-NH) came into force with immediate application to resource consent decision-making. The NPS-NH sets out a balanced way for councils to manage natural hazard risks in new developments, based on the level of risk involved. The IPN 2026 provides a methodology for mitigating inundation hazards to reduce the level of risk, consistent with the objective of the NPS-NH.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 In addition to the broad community engagement process, feedback on the draft IPN 2025 was directly sought through the Post Settlement Governance Entities. No feedback was received.

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

10.1 Overall, staff consider the decision to adopt the IPN 2026 is of low/medium significance.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The IPN has been in place since 2019 and much of the development industry is familiar with the practice note. Feedback was sought from the community and development sector, with amendments made to the IPN to address feedback points where appropriate.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low-Medium	The updated IPN may impact on present or future generations in a minor way, for example the cost of construction of increased building platform levels will mean higher build costs which may be passed on through rent and indirect charges from a business using the building. Conversely the cost of not raising ground or building platform levels could be considered a negative impact on present or future generations, if buildings become inundated in future storm events putting life and property at risk.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The IPN can be reviewed at any time. Future reviews of the IPN could take place following climate change adaptation work or further updates to national guidance.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	N/A	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	The IPN will not impact the level of service provided by the Council. The IPN will provide clarity on Council’s approach to setting minimum ground or building platforms.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	The IPN will not impact on Council’s debt, level of rates charged or Council’s financial capacity.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A	N/A
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/A	N/A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A	N/A
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	The IPN does not require particular considerations relating to TMOTW.

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Consultation on the proposed update has been completed (as detailed in Sections 4 and 9), and minor amendments to the IPN are recommended in response to the feedback received. The five stakeholders who provided feedback have been made aware of this report and the proposed responses to their feedback.

11.2 Following adoption of the IPN 2026, the website will be updated and the IPN made available. Stakeholders will be informed of the update through emails and sector newsletters.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There is an ongoing risk that developers and landowners will see the IPN 2026 causing increased costs due to higher building platform or ground level requirements (as a result of national guidance regarding sea-level rise). However, this risk can be effectively mitigated through proactive engagement with the development sector, coupled with clear communication that highlights the long-term benefits of resilience, including reduced recovery costs and enhanced sustainability of developments.

12.2 Adoption of the IPN 2026 reduces Council’s legal and reputational liability by ensuring that decisions on minimum ground and building platform levels are based on the most up‑to‑date national guidance and best available technical information, providing a clear and defensible basis for resource and building consent decisions. By applying the updated IPN, the Council avoids the potential future costs and liability that could arise if developments are affected by inundation and it is found that Council did not follow current guidance or use the best information available.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Adopting the IPN 2026 strengthens Tasman’s ability to manage, adapt and respond to climate related risks. The Tasman Climate Action Plan (2024-2027) has a short-term action 2(a)(ii) for regulatory activities (resource and building consenting) to continue to account for inundation and sea level rise based on Ministry for the Environment guidance and apply the 'Inundation Practice Note’ for setting minimum ground and floor levels for subdivision, new buildings, and major alterations. Updating the IPN document is in accordance with the Tasman Climate Action Plan.

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

14.1 Adoption of the IPN 2026 supports the Long-Term Plan’s strategic priorities, particularly ‘Strong resilient and inclusive communities’, and ‘Enabling positive and sustainable development’.

14.2 Numerous provisions in the TRMP require natural hazard considerations. The IPN 2026 provides a methodology and approach to setting appropriate resilient ground and building platform levels to mitigate the effects of natural hazards. The IPN 2026 also assists with the Council’s administration of the Building Act 2004 by providing the methodology and approach for determining whether a hazard notice is required for a development.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The IPN is a standardised methodology to determine minimum ground and/or building platform levels for development exposed to inundation (freshwater and coastal). It is an important tool to assist in mitigating inundation hazards.

15.2 Consultation on the proposed update has now been completed and minor amendments to the IPN are recommended in response to the feedback received.

15.3 Council consideration and adoption of the IPN 2026 is now required to complete the process.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Following adoption of the IPN 2026, the website will be updated and the IPN made available. Stakeholders will be informed of the update through emails and sector newsletters.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Tasman Inundation Practice Note 2026	73
2.⇩	Feedback received, staff responses and recommended amendments to IPN	117

7.5 Six-Month Performance Measure Progress Report 2025/2026

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Strategy Finance and Performance Committee
Meeting Date:	19 March 2026
Report Author:	Emily Garland, Graduate Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Sue McLean, Kaiwhakahaere ā Rōpū – Te Pae Rautaki Ahumoni \| Group Manager - Strategy & Finance
Report Number:	RSFP26-03-3

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 This report summarises the six-month progress (July to December 2025) against the Levels of Service Performance Measures set in Tasman’s 10-Year Plan 2024-2034 (LTP). The Council measures its service performance each year using a core set of indicators set in the LTP.

1.1 As this is the six-month progress, results are indicative of the Council’s Performance Measure results only for 2025/2026. The final results will be presented in the Annual Report 2025/2026, scheduled to be adopted in October 2026.

1.2 Of the 94 Performance Measures, 65 (69%) are on track to be met by year end, and 12 (13%) are not on track to be met. A proportion of Performance Measures, 17 (18%), cannot be measured at this point due to the use of annual surveys or testing.

1.3 The full Progress Report is provided in Attachment 1.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Strategy Finance and Performance Committee

1. receives the Six-Month Performance Measure Progress Report 2025/2026 RSFP26-03-3.

3. Progress Report

3.1 Relevant staff have reported on the progress in achieving their Performance Measure targets, set in LTP 2024-2034.

3.2 Staff were asked to classify performance in one of three categories:

3.2.1 On Track - Performance has been measured at six months and is at a level where the target is expected to be achieved by year end.

3.2.2 Not on Track - Performance has been measured at six months and is not at a level where the target is expected to be achieved by year end.

3.2.3 Not Measured - The target has not yet been measured, as it is either not required or cannot be measured at the six-month point.

3.3 As this is an interim report, results are indicative only of Council’s Performance Measure outcomes for 2025/2026. Final results will be reported through the Annual Report 2025/2026, scheduled for adoption in October 2026.

3.4 Of the 94 Performance Measures, 65 (69%) are on track to be met and 12 (13%) are not on track at this point in the year. A further 17 measures (18%) are unable to be measured at six months due to their reliance on annual surveys^{^[1]} or testing. These reasons are noted within the full Progress Report in Attachment 1.

3.5 The 12 measures that are currently not on track are primarily due to weather impacts, resourcing pressures, and regulatory complexity. Staff are monitoring these measures and intervening where possible.

3.6
By comparison, of the 94 measures in the Annual Report 2024/2025, Council fully achieved or achieved within 5% a total of 70 Performance Measures (74%). Twenty‑two measures (23%) were not achieved, and two were unable to be measured.

4. Measures Not Meeting Target

4.1 Twelve Performance Measures are not on track to be met. These are outlined in the following table by Group of Activity:

Performance Measure	Current Result	Progress	Brief Comment	AR 2025 Result^{^[2]}
Environmental Management
Consent applications are processed within statutory timeframes (where they exist) - Non-notified consents Target: 100%	71%	Not on Track	This is a slight decrease from Q1 (79%), which was anticipated due to delays in allocating consents to planners. Performance remains consistent with previous years, and the appointment of two new senior planners in March is expected to improve results going forward.	Not achieved
Consent applications are processed within statutory timeframes (where they exist) - Limited notified consents Target: 100%	0%	Not on Track	One limited‑notified decision was issued in Q2 and was partly granted, with no appeals. Due to its complexity and a two‑day hearing, the consent did not meet statutory timeframes.	Not achieved
Rivers
We complete approved annual maintenance programmes. As measured through the Council’s two monthly maintenance programmes. Target: 95%	0%	Not on Track	Flood response and recovery from the June/July 2025 weather events disrupted the planned maintenance programme, which will not be completed as scheduled. Maintenance activity is now focused on recovery in affected areas. The annual maintenance programme was completed in each of the previous three financial years.	Fully achieved
We develop new native riparian planting sites. Number of plants planted and measured through river maintenance contract claim payment records. Target: >13,000	Expect 11,000 this year.	Not on Track	Planting is programmed at 11,000 for the current year, below our 13,000 target. This is due to budget being redirected to flood recovery works. The performance standard will be reviewed and amended as part of the next LTP.	Fully achieved
Water Supply
The extent to which the local authority’s drinking water supply complies with the following parts of the drinking water quality assurance rules: (a) 4.4 T1 Treatment Rules; (b) 4.5 D1.1 Distribution System Rule; (c) 4.7.1 T2 Treatment Monitoring Rules; (d) 4.7.2 T2 Filtration Rules; (e) 4.7.3 T2 UV Rules; (f) 4.7.4 T2 Chlorine Rules; (g) 4.8 D2.1 Distribution System Rule; (h) 4.10.1 T3 Bacterial Rules; (i) 4.10.2 T3 Protozoal Rules; and (j) 4.11.5 D3.29 Microbiological Monitoring Rule. (Mandatory measure 1)^{^[3]} Treatment Plant Bacteria: Target: 100%	n/a	Not on Track	Due to the complexity of the rules, achieving 100% compliance at all times is difficult, with most non‑compliance driven by data quality issues rather than treatment or monitoring failures. With the exception of Hamama (no treatment) and Redwoods 1 & 2, Eighty Eight Valley, and Dovedale (no protozoa treatment), all supplies are on track to achieve greater than 95% compliance with protozoa, bacterial, and distribution rules across the year. No material change in overall compliance is expected compared with 2024/25. Planned improvements remain on track, with protozoa treatment at Redwoods 1 & 2 by July 2027, compliant supply to Eighty Eight Valley by mid‑2027, investigations underway for Dovedale, and Hamama likely eligible for Mixed‑Use Rural compliance subject to community discussion.	Not achieved
Treatment Plant Protozoa: Target: 100%	n/a	Not on Track		Fully achieved
Distribution Zone Bacteria: Target: 100%	n/a	Not on Track		Not achieved
Planned service interruptions do not exceed 8 hours, as required by section 25 (4) of the Water Services Act 2021. As measured through the Maintenance Contract reporting. Target: <8 hours	8.2 hours	Not on Track	The longest planned interruption was 8.2 hours (Hope, 10 July). The median time is 4.1 hours (n=24).	Fully achieved
Waste Management and Minimisation
The incidence of illegal dumping does not increase over time. As measured by the number of reports of illegal dumping per annum in parks, rivers and road reserve. Target: Less than 100	77	Not on Track	Preliminary data for July–December 2025 shows 77 incidents, including 10 carcass‑dumping cases. This is consistent with the previous two years and indicates the annual target is likely to be exceeded again this year. This time last year there had been 112.	Not achieved
Governance
Number of successful challenges to Council decisions, whether through the Office of the Ombudsman, judicial review or through other statutory processes. Target: <10%	40%	Not on Track	Of the five complaints resolved by the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act, Council decision making has been upheld in three cases. In the two successful challenges the Ombudsman discontinued their investigation due to Council changing its practice on workshops.	Not achieved
Council Enterprises
Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) for activity compared to Annual Report - EBITDA for Forestry. Target: $2.7 million	$417,000	Not on Track	Upfront costs from windthrow harvesting are higher due to the severity of damage. The third‑quarter EBITDA will depend on log price outcomes, which remain uncertain.	Fully achieved
EBITDA for holiday parks. Target: $763,000	$69,000	Not on Track	Poor weather in the region has affected holiday park demand for the October-December quarter. It is expected that the January-March quarter will improve but the year-end EBITDA target remains at risk.	Fully achieved

5. Conclusion

5.1 This report outlines six‑month progress (July–December 2025) against the Levels of Service Performance Measures in Tasman’s 10‑Year Plan 2024–2034.

5.2 Most measures are on track to meet their targets, consistent with last year’s performance. Approximately 18% of measures cannot be assessed at this time as they rely on annual testing or surveys. Twelve measures are not on track due to weather impacts, resourcing pressures, and regulatory complexity.

5.3 As an interim report, results are indicative only. Final performance outcomes for 2025/2026 will be confirmed through the Annual Report, scheduled for adoption in October 2026.

6. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

2025/2026 Six-Month Performance Measure Progress Report

137

[1] These surveys include the Annual Residents Survey (final data collection due by end of April), resource and building consent users surveys and resource recovery centre user survey.

[2] Please refer to Attachment 1 for the high level results from the last three Annual Reports.

[3] This performance measure is a mandatory measure set by the Department of Internal Affairs. The measure was updated in August 2024 after the adoption of the LTP 2024-2034 and as such the wording used in Annual Reports and this progress report are not the same as what was written in the LTP. Staff were guided by Audit New Zealand to report against the updated measure during the Annual Report 2024/2025.

Chairperson	Cr K Maling
Deputy Chairperson	Cr D Woods
Members	Mayor T King	Cr M Kininmonth
	Cr C Butler	Deputy Mayor B Maru
	Cr J Ellis	Cr D McNamara
	Cr K Ferneyhough	Cr P Morgan
	Cr M Greening	Cr T Neubauer
	Cr J Gully	Cr T Walker
	Cr M Hume