Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 12 February 2025

Council MEETING

12 February 2025

Order of Business

1. Karakia Timatanga

2. Apologies

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

4. Declarations of Interest (if any)

Members are reminded of their duty to give a general notice of any interest of items to be considered on this agenda and the need to declare these interests.

5. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other matters.

6. Presentation - Massey University Foundation Page 7

7. Confirmation of Minutes Page 9

That the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 5 February 2025 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Reports

8. Annual Budget (Plan) 2025/26 - Update including draft Consultation Document and Supporting Information Page 19

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy and Scott Mancer, Manager - Finance.

9. Fees and Charges Review Page 223

Report, presented by Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy.

10. Rating System for 2025/26 Page 293

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy.

11. Submission on the Local Government (Water Services) Bill Page 317

Memorandum, presented by Mike Monaghan, Group Manager - 3 Waters and Julie Keane, Transition Manager Three Waters.

12. Submission on Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill Page 341

Memorandum, presented by Todd Taiepa, Manager - Māori Advisory.

13. Arena Masterplan Steering Group Page 347

Memorandum, presented by John Lynch, Manager Venues + Events.

14. Order of Candidate Names on Voting Papers 2025 Page 355

Report, presented by Hannah White, Manager - Governance.

15. Appointment to the Heritage Reference Group Page 361

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Manager - Governance.

16. Council Work Schedule Page 363

17. Karakia Whakamutunga

18. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

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 are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
19.	Confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 5 February 2025 Part II Confidential	For the reasons set out in the Council of 5 February 2025, held in public present.

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 the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Council Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 05 February 2025, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Grant Smith (The Mayor) (in the Chair) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Apologies:

Councillor Lorna Johnson (lateness)

Councillor Lorna Johnson entered the meeting at 9.23am during consideration of clause 3-25. She was not present for clauses 1-25 and 2-25.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 12.25pm after consideration of clause 7-25. She was not present for clauses 8-25 to 14-25.

	Karakia Timatanga
	Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb opened the meeting with karakia.

1-25

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the apologies.

Clause 1-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

2-25	Public Comment
	Shaun Kay spoke on the work of the Education is a right not a privilege Stationery bank.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED That the Public Comment be received.
	Clause 2-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

3-25

Presentation - The Plaza, Kiwi Property

Presentation from Andrew Heaphy, Senior Centre Manager, The Plaza and Linda Trainer, General Manager – Assets, Kiwi Property.

The presenters discussed the detrimental effect of the change in the rating system on the Plaza. Whilst they agreed with the rationale to move towards capital value; they were concerned with the speed at which the change was happening.

They requested Council consider the following:

· Slow the transition (to Capital value) from the proposed 3 years to 5 years,

· Lower the differential factor for non-residential ratepayers

· Increase the uniform annual general charge

Councillor Lorna Johnson entered the meeting at 9.23am.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That the Council receive the presentation for information.

Clause 3-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

4-25

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Brent Barrett.

RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the extraordinary Council meeting of 5 December 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

2. That the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 11 December 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 4-25 above was carried 15 votes with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Abstained:

Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb.

5-25

Tribute - New Year's Honours 2025

The Mayor read out the achievements of the New Year’s Honours recipients from Palmerston North. He also acknowledged the achievements of the following former Palmerstonians:

· Sam Whitelock. (Now Hawkes Bay) Former resident and ex All Black Rugby captain. Awarded ONZM for services to Rugby and Community/Mental Health.

· Noel Harris. (now Mt Maunganui) Former resident and premier Horse Racing jockey. Awarded MNZM for services to Horse Racing.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council congratulate the local recipients of the New Year’s Honours 2025.

Clause 5-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

6-25

Local Water Done Well- Approval for Consultation

Memorandum, presented by Julie Keane - Transition Manager Three Waters, Mike Monaghan - Group Manager Three Waters, Olivia Wix - Communications Manager.

Council requested several amendments be made to the consultation document to further clarify some of the issues and ensure continuity of how costs are presented throughout the document.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Lorna Johnson.

RESOLVED

1. That the consultation document be edited and come back to Council on 12 February, with the following edits:

· show option of numbers plus inflation

· Option 2 – show which councils are possible for option 2 and effect of smaller group on costs; range of options – best vs worst matrix.

· explain changes to national standards and likely changes to costs due to them.

· whether Nature Calls costs are included or not - show consistently across all figures.

Clause 6-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

The meeting adjourned at 11.05am.

The meeting resumed at 11.20am.

7-25	Exemption of Council Controlled Organisations Memorandum, presented by Sarah Claridge, Governance Advisor. An amendment to recommendation 4 was moved, which requested that the Globe and Regent Theatres continue to present an annual Statement of Intent. An additional recommendation was also moved ensuring that Council produce a Statement of Expectation for the two theatre CCOs. Both resolutions were put to ensure some continuity of current practice whilst allowing for an annual audit and six-month report to no longer be required.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 3. That Council decline the request from Te Manawa Museums Trust to become an exempted organisation.
	Clause 7-25 above was carried 12 votes to 4, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan and Orphée Mickalad. Against: Councillors Rachel Bowen, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council approve the request to treat the Globe Theatre Trust as an exempted organisation for the purpose of compliance and external financial audit; for three years from 5 February 2025 to 5 February 2028, pursuant to Section 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. 2. That Council approve the request to treat the Regent Theatre Trust as an exempted organisation for the purpose of compliance and external financial audit; for three years from 5 February 2025 to 5 February 2028, pursuant to Section 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. 4. That Council request the Globe Theatre Trust and Regent Theatre Trust present an annual Statement of Intent and Annual Report to the relevant committee.
	Clause 7-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Brent Barrett. RESOLVED 5. That Council continue to provide a three - yearly Statement of Expectation to The Globe Theatre Trust and Regent Theatre Trust.
	Clause 7-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Brent Barrett. On an amendment to recommendation 4: That Council request the Globe Theatre Trust and Regent Theatre Trust present an annual Statement of Intent and ~~their~~ Annual Report to the relevant committee. RB/BB The amendment was carried 11 votes to 5, the voting being as followed For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson and Billy Meehan.

The meeting adjourned at 12.25pm.

The meeting resumed at 1.30pm.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta was not present when the meeting resumed at 1:30pm.

8-25	Review of CEDA Appointment of Director Policy - Creation of Working Group and Terms of Reference Memorandum, presented by Sarah Claridge, Governance Advisor.
	Moved Lew Findlay, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council establish a joint working group with Manawatū District Council to review the CEDA Appointment of Directors Policy. 2. That Council approve the Terms of Reference of the CEDA Appointment of Directors Policy Working Group (Attachment 1).
	Clause 8-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Lew Findlay, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 3. That Council agree the Mayors’ recommendation to appoint Mayor Grant Smith, Councillor Vaughan Dennison and Councillor Leonie Hapeta (as members of the Electoral College) to the Working Group.
	Clause 8-25 above was carried 12 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor. Abstained: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Vaughan Dennison.

9-25

Civic Fund Establishment - Te Awa Community Foundation

Memorandum, presented by Richard Carr, Commercial Partnerships and Funding Manager.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council note progress towards establishing a civic fund in conjunction with the Te Awa Community Foundation.

Clause 9-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

10-25

Civic and Cultural Precinct: 6 Month Update

Memorandum, presented by David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning and Richard Carr, Commercial Partnerships and Funding Manager.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the report titled Civic and Cultural Precinct: 6 Month Update, presented on 5 February 2025.

Clause 10-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

11-25

Council Work Schedule

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated 5 February 2025

Clause 11-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Exclusion of Public

12-25

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

18.

Confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 11 December 2024 Part II Confidential

For the reasons set out in the Council of 11 December 2024, held in public present.

19.

Sale and Purchase of Property on Ruahine Street

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES:

This information needs to be kept confidential to allow Council to engage in commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage

s7(2)(h)

Clause 12-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillor Vaughan Dennison left the meeting at 2:06pm

The public part of the meeting finished at 2.06pm.

Confirmed 12 February 2025

Mayor

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Annual Budget (Plan) 2025/26 - Update including draft Consultation Document and Supporting Information

Presented By: Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy and Scott Mancer, Manager - Finance

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That the Chief Executive incorporate the following in the draft 2025/26 Annual Budget supporting information for adoption at the Council meeting of 5 March 2025:

a. Budgetary assumptions that are unchanged from those agreed to at the Council meeting on 11 December 2024, except for the addition of operating expenditure budget of $400K to fund the proposed levy from the water services regulator.

b. Financial statements and other supporting information based on the drafts included as Attachment 2, noting that $100,000 has been set aside in each of the financial years 2025/26 and 2026/27 to support the Centrepoint Theatre rebuild, until further confirmation from Centrepoint as to which allocation of support (in-kind, consent costs, grant) would be most appropriate.

2. That Council note the Consultation Document will be presented for adoption at the Council meeting of 5 March 2025, based on the draft in Attachment 3.

1. ISSUE

1.1 At its meeting on 11 December 2024 Council resolved to:

“… instruct the Chief Executive to prepare a draft of the Consultation Document and supporting information for the Annual Budget 2025/26 for consideration by the Council at its meeting on 12 February 2025 and that it contains:

a. key assumptions outlined in Section 4 amended by confirming the proposed budget for remuneration as being $63m, being the $62.5m as outlined in the Long-Term Plan 2024/34 plus $0.5m for positions which are offset with additional revenue

b. programmes as agreed at the Council meeting on 6 November 2024

c. a budget for Local Water Done Well Transition support in 2025/26 comprising expenditure of $1.5M funded by way of a grant subsidy of $621,831 and the balance of $878,169 by way of loan (the grant subsidy is the remainder of the balance of Better Off Funding, reallocated by resolution 214-24).

d. increase the resource recovery operating budget by $65k to fund the delivery of Programme 2338 – Recycling Contamination Monitoring Development

e. a budget of $120,000 to support a Street Lighting survey

f. approve Option 1 and agree an additional budget of $50K for the development and implementation of the Palmerston North Age Friendly Implementation Plan

g. support the Centrepoint Theatre rebuild of up to $200k over two years by:

i. In-kind support – officer time to support with fundraising, promotion, communications etc; and

ii. Resource consent and building consent costs – the application process for this is already underway; and

iii. Grant funding – the quantum to be determined at the 12 February 2025 Council meeting.

h. That the Chief Executive look at reducing the professional services budgets in 2025/26 by $1M and creating a new $1M Internal Capacity Building Budget to be used for professional development, internal capacity support and staff remuneration; and report back to 12 February 2025.”

1.2 This report provides the information required in response to the resolutions above and seeks endorsement of the content of the draft Consultation Document and Supporting Information.

2. BACKGROUND

general

2.1 Council has been following its agreed timetable towards the adoption of a 2025/26 draft budget for consultation in March. Materials presented today are based on direction received at Council meetings of 6 November and 11 December 2024.

2.2 An initial draft of the proposed Consultation Document is attached. Once updated it will highlight what changes there are from Year 2 of the Long-term Plan, primarily due to changed circumstances and updated timelines for some programmes. It will also highlight proposed rates levels for (average) properties.

2.3 A strategy for public engagement has been developed. This will include provision of the final Consultation Document and Supporting Information on Council’s website and at the Customer Service Centre and libraries. There will be opportunities for group meetings and for information to be provided through social media channels. It is intended that a brief document will be delivered to all households.

2.4 We plan to have proposed rates for each property available to be viewed on the Council’s website.

2.5 The public will have the option of making a submission and being heard by Council.

2.6 Following the consultation period and hearings, the Council will be required to adopt its final Annual Budget (Plan) prior to 30 June 2025 (currently scheduled for 4 June following a deliberations meeting on 14 May 2025).

2.7 Attached are the following:

Attachment 1 – provides and overview to the resolutions that were passed at the 6 December 2024 meeting regarding professional services, providing a summary of the uses of the professional services budget.

Attachment 2 – drafts of the supporting information, including changes to capital and operating budgets as resolved at the 6 November and 11 December 2024 meetings:

• Financial overview and forecast financial statements

• Annual Budget (Plan) Disclosure Statement

• Groups of Activities information, including financial forecasts and programme schedules

• Significant forecasting assumptions

• Descriptions of the proposed rating system, rates and funding impact statements

• Levels of service and performance measures

Attachment 3 – draft of the proposed Consultation Document

BUDGET UPDATE

2.8 The budget is based on Year 2 of the Long-Term Plan updated to reflect subsequent decisions of Council. Key matters influencing the preparation of the annual budget were outlined in the reports to the meetings on 6 November and 11 December 2024. The current proposed increase for 2025/26 is lower than that included in Year 2 of the Long-Term Plan.

2.9 In addition to the matters resolved by the Council on 11 December 2024, an additional budgeted operating expenditure of $400K has been included to reflect the cost of the new levy being proposed by the Government to fund the water regulator. As advised by the Department of Internal Affairs, the levy has been allocated between the water activities as follows: water supply (75%), wastewater (21%) and stormwater (4%).

2.10 Officers have also been made aware, since the meeting on 11 December, of another proposed levy for the Commerce Commission in relation to the economic regulation of ringfencing water services activities. This new levy is proposed to start from 1 July 2025 and initial calculations suggest that the levy for Palmerston North would be circa $100K. If confirmed, officers will include this in the papers for deliberations on 14 May 2025, however we will look to absorb this within existing budgets, where possible.

2.11 Tables 1-3 below provide the latest summary of the draft budget compared to the Long-Term Plan.

Table 1: Funding of Operating expenses	Long-term Plan		Draft Annual budget
	2024/25 $M	2025/26 $M	2025/26 Dec draft $M	2025/26 Feb draft $M
Personnel Depreciation Finance (interest) All Other Operating Expenses	59.3 49.4 14.5 77.9	62.5 50.5 17.0 79.1	64.2 49.7 14.9 79.3	63.0 49.7 14.9 81.5
Total operating expenses	201.1	209.1	208.1	209.1
Operating subsidies & grants Finance revenue Other revenue	(6.4) (0.4) (38.6)	(6.5) (0.4) (39.2)	(5.5) (0.5) (40.0)	(6.1) (0.5) (40.0)
Total operating revenue	(45.4)	(46.1)	(46.0)	(46.6)
Net operating expenses	155.7	163.0	162.1	162.5
Less: Depreciation Operating expenses funded from debt Plus: Renewals (3 year rolling average) Debt repayment	(49.4) (5.8) 28.6 7.8	(50.5) (3.9) 30.9 9.6	(49.7) (4.2) 31.2 9.6	(49.7) (5.1) 31.2 9.6
Total rates requirement	136.9	149.1	149.0	148.5

Table 2: Funding of Capital Expenditure	Long-term Plan		Draft Annual budget
	2024/25 $M	2025/26 $M	2025/26 Dec draft $M	2025/26 Feb draft $M
Renewals Capital for growth Capital new	33.0 15.0 47.4	35.6 12.7 77.2	35.6 12.7 77.2	35.3 12.3 68.1
Total capital expenditure	95.4	125.5	125.5	115.7
Funding from external sources	(18.1)	(30.0)	(30.0)	(23.3)
Funding from rates (for renewals)	(28.6)	(30.9)	(30.9)	(31.2)
Funding from additional debt	(48.7)	(64.6)	(64.6)	(61.2)

Table 3: Components of increased rates requirement	Impact on Total Rates for Year 2
Table 3: Components of increased rates requirement	As per LTP	As per draft AB
Interest Costs on Debt	1.8%	0.3%
Debt Repayment	1.4%	1.3%
Rolling Average Renewal increase	1.7%	1.9%
Labour Costs	2.3%	2.7%
Utilities and Insurance	0.2%	0.4%
All Other (Contractors, Professional Services, Materials etc.)	2.1%	2.6%
Revenue (excluding Rates and Grants & Subsidies)	(0.5%)	(0.9%)
Revenue – Operating Grants & Subsidies	(0.1%)	0.2%
Increase in total rates requirement	8.9%	8.5%

2.12 The tables include the funding of the Transport Omissions, plus the additional funding of the Footpath Renewal Programme as resolved by Council on 6 November 2024. This equates to circa $1.5M or 1.1% out of the 8.5% of the increase. The additional water levy mentioned in 2.9 above is a further 0.2% out of the 8.5% proposed increase.

2.13 Additionally, 3.5% out of the 8.5% proposed increase relates to the funding of the capital programme for the year (interest, debt repayment and rolling average renewal).

3. RATES ISSUES

3.1 The budget assumes total rates revenue will need to increase by 8.5%.

3.2 Noting that the impact on individual ratepayers will vary, options for the rates system to apply for 2025/26 are outlined in the report ‘Rating System for 2025/26’ also on this meeting agenda.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 Officers will make any changes resulting from the Council’s decisions.

4.2 An updated final Consultation Document and supporting information will be presented to the Council for adoption at its meeting on 5 March 2025.

5. Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		Yes
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 14. Mahere mana urungi, kirirarautanga hihiri 14. Governance and Active Citizenship Plan The objective is: Base our decisions on sound information and advice
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Adopting an annual budget/plan each year is a fundamental legislative requirement and without this in place the Council will not be able to set rates for the year and therefore fund any of its actions, plans or strategies. Palmerston North City Council consults on its annual budget to ensure public awareness of any proposed changes since the Long-Term Plan was agreed.

Attachments

1.	Professional Services Information ⇩
2.	Draft Supporting Information - Annual Budget 2025/26 ⇩
3.	Initial draft of Consultation Document - Annual Budget 2025/26 ⇩

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Fees and Charges Review

PRESENTED BY: Steve Paterson, Manager Financial Strategy

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council receive the report titled ‘Fees and Charges Review’, presented on 12 February 2025, and note the current status of fees and charges.

Trade Waste

2. That Council agree for consultation the proposal of updated fees and charges for Trade Waste services effective from 1 July 2025 as attached in Appendix 2 and authorise the Chief Executive to undertake the necessary consultative process under sections 82 and 150 of the Local Government Act 2002;

That Council agree for consultation the proposal of updated fees and charges for Trade Waste services effective from 1 July 2025 as attached in Appendix 2 (and amended using either Option A or Option B from Table 1 in section 3.4 of this report) and authorise the Chief Executive to undertake the necessary consultative process under sections 82 and 150 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Planning & Miscellaneous

3. That Council agree for consultation the Statement of Proposal (and the associated summary) of updated fees and charges for Planning Services and Miscellaneous Services effective from 1 July 2025 as attached in Appendix 3, and authorise the Chief Executive to undertake the necessary consultative process under sections 83 and 150 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Building

4. That Council agree the fees and charges for Building Services, as proposed in Appendix 4 for public notification to take effect from 1 July 2025.

Environmental Health

5. That Council agree the fees and charges for Environmental Health Services (in terms of regulation 7 of the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966) as proposed in Appendix 5 for public notification to take effect from 1 July 2025.

Animal Management

6. That Council agree the fees and charges for the Impounding of Animals (in terms of section 14 of the Impounding Act 1955) and for Dog Registration and Dog Impounding (in terms of sections 37 and 68 of the Dog Control Act 1996) as proposed in Appendix 6 for public notification to take effect from 1 July 2025.

Burial & Cremation

7. That Council agree the fees and charges for Burial and Cremation, as proposed in Appendix 7 for public notification to take effect from 1 July 2025.

Service Connections

8. That Council agree the fees and charges for Service Connections, as proposed in Appendix 8 to take effect from 1 July 2025.

Resource Recovery

9. That Council agree there be no changes to fees and charges for Resource Recovery, as proposed in Appendix 9.

Parks and Reserves

10. That Council agree the fees and charges for Parks and Reserves as proposed in Appendix 10 to take effect from 1 July 2025.

Backflow Prevention

11. That Council agree the fees and charges for Backflow Prevention testing and maintenance as proposed in Appendix 11 to take effect from 1 July 2025.

Corridor Access Request

12. That Council agree the fees and charges for Corridor Access Requests as proposed in Appendix 12 to take effect from 1 July 2025.

Parking

13. That Council agree there be no change to fees and charges for Parking, as proposed in Appendix 13.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Fees and charges need to be reviewed annually to ensure they adequately meet the Revenue & Financing policy, budgetary and other objectives
OPTION 1:	Approve fee increases as proposed
Community Views	Each of the different types of fees requires a different process for community engagement. Where this is legislatively controlled it is identified in the report
Benefits	More likely to comply with funding proportions contained in Revenue & Financing Policy
Risks	· Public criticism of increases · Increased charges for some activities may discourage compliance or reduce volumes
Financial	Budgeted revenue targets more likely to be achieved
OPTION 2:	Approve fee amendments for some of those proposed at greater or lesser levels
Community Views	As above
Benefits	· Lower fees than recommended likely to mean policy targets will not be achieved · Higher fees than recommended in some instances will increase likelihood of policy user fee target being achieved
Risks	Higher fees than recommended may increase the risk of public criticism
Financial	If lower increases are approved for some fees likely that budgeted revenue will not be achievable
OPTION 3:	Do not approve any fee increases
Community Views	As above
Benefits	Lower fees than recommended likely to mean policy targets will not be achieved
Risks	When increases eventually are made (to reduce the pressure on rates increases) the extent of the increase required will be publicly and politically unacceptable The budget assumptions for fees and charges in the Long-term Plan or Annual Budget would need to be revisited which would result in an increase in rates requirement
Financial	If no increases are approved likely that budgeted revenue will not be achievable

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current status of fees and charges made by the Council and to recommend the adoption of updated fees for some of them.

1.2 At its meeting on 11 December 2024 Council considered the first draft of the 2025/26 Annual Budget and endorsed the revenue assumptions outlined in the covering report.

1.3 It is important that fees and charges be regularly reviewed. There are a variety of reasons for this including:

· Compliance with legislative requirements – many fees and charges made by the Council are governed by specific legislation

· Consistency with Council’s Revenue and Financing policy – for each activity the Council has adopted targets for the funding mix, i.e. the proportion of costs to be funded from fees and charges

· Transparency – in some instances it is important to be able to demonstrate that the charge being made represents a fair and reasonable recovery of the costs of providing a particular service

· Market comparability – for some services the Council operates in a contestable market and it is important that fees and charges are responsive to market changes.

1.4 However, as a review process is sometimes very time-consuming the depth of the review for each type of fee or charge may vary depending on the circumstances.

1.5 Attached as Appendix 1 is a schedule listing, in broad terms, the various types of fees and charges made by the Council. The schedule is ordered by activity (consistent with the 2024-34 Long-term Plan (LTP)) and within that by function (consistent with the Revenue & Financing Policy). Comments are made within the schedule outlining the reasons for there being no change recommended to a particular fee or charge. In cases where changes are recommended more detail is provided in the appendices.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Council has previously indicated that as a matter of policy it wishes all fee and charge revisions to be encapsulated in a single report to the Council early each year.

2.2 Council’s current Revenue & Financing Policy (Long-term Plan 2024-34 pages 276-311) describes how the Council goes about deciding who should pay for the provision of each activity and in what proportions. The policy should be the foundation for decisions about the levels of fees and charges.

2.3 For some activities (such as swimming pools) only a portion of the operating costs is borne by the Council and none of the revenue is received directly by the Council. The Council does have the right under the agreement with CLM to set the maximum fees charged for the services. The Revenue & Financing Policy addresses only that portion of the net operating costs funded by the Council and therefore makes no reference to user charges for swimming pools.

2.4 In some of the activities shown above it is not practical to charge users through a separate charge specifically related to use. An example of this is water where large consumers are metered but the majority of users are charged through the rating system by way of a fixed targeted rate as the best proxy for direct user charge.

2.5 In some activities a combination of charging mechanisms is used. Resource recovery is an example. Users are responsible for their own rubbish disposal. The Council does provide a collection and disposal service which is funded from the sale of rubbish bags. Recycling activity is funded from the sale of recyclables and the balance through the rating system by way of fixed targeted rates.

3. Description of options

3.1 With a few exceptions (being cemeteries, social housing, Conference and Function Centre), draft revenue budgets for 2025/26 have been set at levels which aim to meet the Revenue & Financing Policy proportion targets. Achieving these revenue levels is dependent not only on the level of fee or charge set but also the actual volumes of activity by comparison with budget assumptions.

3.2 The timing of this review is scheduled to fit into the annual planning timetable in a way which ensures appropriate revenue assumptions are made in the proposed Annual Budget and changes to fees and charges can be implemented as soon as practicable.

3.3 Much of this report is focused on providing an overview of Council’s fees and charges. However, the report does include specific proposals for change for a number of fees and charges as explained in more detail in the following appendices:

Appendix	Activity	Proposed action
2	Trade Waste	Proposal for public consultation
3	Planning & Miscellaneous	Proposal for public consultation
4	Building	Proposed increases
5	Environmental Health	Proposed increases
6	Animal Management	Proposed increases
7	Burial & Cremation	Proposed increases
8	Service Connections	Proposed increases
9	Resource Recovery	No change
10	Parks and Reserves	Proposed increases
11	Backflow Prevention	Proposed increases
12	Corridor Access Requests	Proposed increases
13	Parking	No change

3.4 Whilst the background to, and rationale for, the recommendations is made in each of the appendices, attention is drawn to the following:

· Many of the charges are being proposed to be increased by 3.4-3.7% (rounded) to reflect the level of operational cost increase being experienced and thereby ensure an appropriate proportion of the increase is incurred by the user rather than the general ratepayer.

· Proposed increases in the volume-based charges for trade waste vary but will lead to increases in overall charges of approx. 25% for some tradewaste users. These charges are based on a long-standing formula associated with the Council’s tradewaste bylaw. They reflect the increasing costs of tradewaste disposal over the last two years. It is recognised that such an increase is significant. An option is to increase the charges by a smaller percentage and review the position again next year. Table 1 below shows two options for charges that would apply if the increase was to be less than what is recommended:

o Option A – represents rates with an increase at 50% of what has been recommended

o Option B – represents rates with an increase at 60% of what has been recommended. This option recognises that costs of delivering the services will increase again in the following year and that unless charges are increased by more than 50% of what is recommended we will not reach the policy expectation that users should pay the full cost of processing their tradewaste and will face the same issue again next year when considering charge levels.

Based on assumed trade waste volumes and composition adopting these charges would reduce the tradewaste revenue expectation by approx. $62k (GST excl.) for Option a and $52k (GST excl.) for Option B.

Table 1: Optional increase for trade waste charges – refer Appendix 2 for recommended charges
		Actual Charge 2024/25 (GST incl.)	Option A Charge for 2025/26 (GST incl.)	Option B Charge for 2025/26 (GST incl.)
3.1	Volume Charge ($/m³)	$0.694/m³	$0.78/m³	$0.80/m³
3.3	Suspended Solids Charge (SS) ($/kg)	$0.744/kg SS	$0.95/kg SS	$1.00/kg SS
3.4	Organic Loading Charge (BOD) ($/kg)	$0.71/kg BOD	$0.79/kg BOD	$0.80/kg BOD
3.6	Phosphorous Charge (DRP) ($/kg)	$38.805 /kg DRP	$46.45/kg DRP	$48.00/kg DRP

· The possibility of increasing cremation charges more than is proposed is discussed in Appendix 7.

· As outlined in the report to the Council meeting on 11 December 2024 no change is proposed to fees and charges for resource recovery and parking – both were increased from 1 July 2024 see Appendices 9 & 13 of this report.

4. Analysis OF PROPOSALS

4.1 Analysis of each of the fee types for individual activities is contained in the appendices.

5. SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 A broad review of fees and charges has been undertaken. Revenue from these is an important part of the funding mix. There are two elements to achieving revenue budgets. The first is the actual level of the fee or charge. The second is the volume of sales or use. A change to the level of fee or charge can influence demand. Achieving revenue targets is sometimes more about volumes than the level of the charge. There is a fine balance between the two. This report recommends increases in charges for a number of services and many of these are reflective of revenue assumptions made in the proposed Annual Budget for 2025/26.

6. Next actions

6.1 There is a series of procedural steps to be followed to enable some of the revised fees and charges to be implemented. In some cases (as specifically identified in the recommendations) this involves a period of public consultation and a report back to the Council for final confirmation (taking into account any public submissions).

6.2 Staff will action messaging appropriate to the rates and fee changes not otherwise formally notified.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The Revenue & Financing Policy incorporates the Council’s current views on what portion of each activity should be directly funded from users. This policy forms part of the 2024-34 Long-term Plan which was the subject of public consultation in 2024.

7.2 There are varying types of public consultation required to enable changes to be made to fees and charges. For some the special consultative process or a process consistent with the principles of section 82 of the Local Government Act is to be used. More detail about each is provided in the detailed appendices.

Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		Yes
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans? There are some activities as mentioned in this report that do not meet the Revenue and Financing Policy funding band targets for Fees and Charges. The Council has previously acknowledged these and for the time being proposes to operate outside the policy expectations.		Yes
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 14. Mahere mana urungi, kirirarautanga hihiri 14. Governance and Active Citizenship Plan The objective is: Base our decisions on sound information and advice
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The process for setting fees and charges depends on the nature of the activity and the particular requirements of the relevant bylaw, legislation or Council policy. The recommendations take account of Council’s Revenue & Financing Policy that in turn reflects Council’s strategic direction.

Attachments

Appendices 1 to 13 ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Rating System for 2025/26

Presented By: Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That the Chief Executive incorporate the following rating system assumptions in the draft of the 2025/26 Annual Budget supporting information and consultation document to be presented for adoption at the Council meeting on 5 March 2025 (subject to any amendment):

i. continuing the second stage of the implementation of the capital value based targeted rate

ii. a uniform annual general charge of:

· $200; or

· $300; or

· $400

iii. differentials for the rural/semi-serviced (0.2ha to 5ha) differential category with a surcharge of -40% for the general rate and for the targeted capital value-based rate

iv. differentials for the non-residential differential category with a surcharge of 150% for the general rate and 100% for the targeted capital value-based rate.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The 2024 city rating revaluation with an effective date of 1 September 2024 has been implemented and will become the base for value-based rates from 1 July 2025. As outlined in a report to Council’s meeting on 11 December 2024 using the new values will have a significant impact on the incidence of rates.

1.2 On 11 December Council resolved:

“That Council instruct the Chief Executive to bring options to the 12 February 2025 Council meeting in response to the change in rating incidence caused by the valuation changes. These options will include mechanisms such as altering the level of uniform annual general charge; or the differential surcharges applying to the general rate based on the land value; or the targeted rate based on capital value; or a combination of all three.”

2. BACKGROUND

Recap of valuation outcomes & impact on rating incidence

2.1 The capital value of the City has decreased by 8.6% and the land value by 17.6%. The distribution of the values between the differential categories used by the Council for rating purposes has changed as shown in the following table.

Table 1: Proportions of total land & capital value by differential category

	% of old CV	% of new CV	% of old LV	% of new LV
Single Unit Residential	66.5	62.1	72.1	66.6
Multi-Unit Residential	3.5	3.3	3.6	3.4
Miscellaneous	1.6	2.1	1.8	2.3
Non-Residential	16.9	20.4	10.7	13.8
Rural/Semi-Serviced	11.5	12.1	11.8	13.9

2.2 The non-residential category includes utilities in the road network. The rateable capital value for these rating units increased by 39% meaning they now represent 3.2% of the total city rateable capital value (previously 2.1%). The extent of this change (especially when considered on conjunction with the doubling of the portion of the rates based on the capital value) clouds the assessment of the total rates payable by the non-residential sector. This will be referred to again later in the report.

2.3 The new valuations do not generate additional rates revenue for the Council. They do, however, impact on the allocation of rates from 1 July 2025. The land value is the base for the general rate and for the first time in 2024/25 a targeted rate based on the capital value was introduced. A system of differential rating charges a different rate in the dollar to the each of the various differential rating categories. The portion of the total value in each category influences the general rates and targeted rates allocated to each category.

2.4 The following graph shows the proportion of the total rates assessed on each differential category – showing the actual rates share for 2024/25 and what it would have been for 2024/25 had the rates been set using the new values.

2.5 With the single unit residential property share of the total land value decreasing from 72.1% to 66.6% and capital value from 66.5% to 62.1%, using the new values would see approximately $11m of rates transferred from the residential sector to the non-residential sector ($10.2m) and rural sector ($0.8m) if no further changes were made to the rating system.

2.6 Such a significant movement may not be an appropriate outcome and scenarios have been modelled to understand how this may be moderated. However, there are other factors that will influence the final rates incidence for 2025/26, and these are outlined in the following section.

Other factors impacting on rates incidence for 2025/26

2.7 In addition to the revised rating valuations, rates incidence for 2025/26 will be influenced by the following:

· The second stage of implementation of the targeted rate based on the capital value – in effect approximately doubling the rates to be based on the capital value

· The proposed second stage of implementing the change to the differential surcharge for the rural/semi-serviced (lifestyle) properties

· The extent of the increases required in the fixed charges to fund the proposed budgets for water, wastewater and resource recovery. Based on the draft of the annual budget to be presented for consideration by Council on 12 February the following fixed charges would be required:

	Actual for 2024/25 ($ GST incl.)	Draft for 2025/26 ($GST incl.)
Water	415	500
Wastewater	375	410
Kerbside recycling	144	189
Rubbish & public recycling	51	77

Metered water charges will also need to increase by approx. 10% - these are ultimately adopted as part of the rates setting resolution.

· Whether as a consequence of the revaluation or as a part of the progressive implementation of the capital value-based rate it is considered appropriate to change the differential surcharges for some of the differential categories

· The level of the uniform annual general charge (UAGC).

3. Discussion

Why might an intervention to moderate the impact of the revaluation be appropriate?

3.1 An intervention may be appropriate if it is considered that the rates that would be assessed based on the updated valuations are unreasonable for a significant group of ratepayers. It may also be appropriate as a holding action or temporary measure if the extent of the change in rates is considered unreasonably high.

3.2 Such an intervention was made following the 2018 and 2021 revaluations as on both occasions there was a significant increase in residential land values especially for those at the lower end of the market. The response was to lower the uniform annual general charge and increase the differential surcharge for non-residential properties meaning the non-residential properties then paid a greater share of the total than before.

3.3 The circumstances are similar again this year although on this occasion there have been reductions in values with the greatest reduction (in percentage terms) occurring for residential properties at the lower end of property values.

What type of changes might be possible?

3.4 The following three main tools for change are considered in turn:

· A change to the level of the uniform annual general charge (UAGC)

· A change to the differential surcharges for some categories of property

· Changing the proportion of the rates based on the capital value.

Changing the level of the UAGC:

3.5 The UAGC is an integral part of the Council rating system. It serves to moderate the level of rates (especially for residential properties) by making sure those with low land values pay at least a minimum contribution to fund city services and facilities and those with very high land values do not pay an unreasonably high contribution.

3.6 The UAGC for 2024/25 is $200 per rating unit. It was reduced to this level in 2022/23 from $500 per rating unit in 2021/22. It was reduced to $500 from $690 in 2018/19.

3.7 For many years it was the practice to increase the UAGC annually to keep the fixed component of the rates at similar proportions from year to year at levels just below the statutory maxima of 30% (which by legislative definition excludes any fixed targeted rates for water and wastewater). For the 2024/25 year fixed charges, calculated in the same way as prescribed in the legislation, are approx. 8%.

3.8 Given the average rates assessed on commercial/industrial properties is much higher than for residential properties the UAGC forms a much smaller part of the individual rates assessed on them compared to residential properties.

3.9 Changing the level of the UAGC would impact not only the total rates contributed by each differential category but also the incidence of rates within each category.

3.10 One of the arguments to reduce the UAGC to $200 following the 2021 revaluation was that the spread of residential land value had been reduced through the revaluation (lower land values increased by 100% or more whilst higher land values increased by a smaller percentage).

3.11 The reverse has occurred during the 2024 revaluation. The greater reductions in land value have been in the traditionally lower valued areas. These reductions have flowed through to the capital value.

3.12 An option is therefore to increase the UAGC. Scenarios have been tested with a UAGC of $200, $300 and $400.

Changing the differential surcharges:

3.13 A fundamental component of the present rating system is that property is grouped by differential category (primarily based on the nature of use) and a general rate is assessed with different rates in the dollar of land value being assessed on each property group.

3.14 The targeted rate based on the capital value is also categorised in the same manner and surcharges are applied (although not at the same level as for the general rate). There are various reasons for this outlined in the funding impact statement in the Council’s Long-term Plan.

3.15 The Council describes the relationship between the rates charged to each differential group in terms of a factor expressed as a percentage of the rate that would apply if there were no differential rating in place. Each year the Council reviews the differential factors applied to each group.

3.16 When adopting the Long-term Plan the Council signalled its intention that the discount provided through the differential system to semi-serviced/rural properties (lifestyle blocks) of between 0.2 ha and 5 ha would be reduced over two years, 2024/25 and 2025/26. Year 2 of this change has been taken into account when modelling scenarios for Council consideration.

3.17 If the intention is that the other differential groups should pay similar proportions of the total rates in 2025/26 as in 2024/25 then there will need to be significant changes to the differential surcharges. A number of scenarios have been tested.

The capital value based targeted rate:

3.18 When adopting the revisions to the rating system for 2024/25 Council signalled it intended that its desire was to progressively increase the portion of the value-based rates based on the capital value to 50% over three years. Rates for 2024/25 were calculated to achieve 16.5% being based on the capital value.

3.19 All testing of scenarios has included an assumption 33% of the value-based rates will be based on the capital value in 2025/26 as the second year of the transition to a 50% capital value based rating system.

Testing scenarios

3.20 The approach taken for this report has been as follows:

· All scenarios assume an increase in total rates required of 8.5% and fixed charges for services being as outlined in clause 2.7 above.

· UAGC levels and differential surcharges as shown in the following table:

Scenario	Differentials	UAGC
1	FM (lifestyle) change discount from -45% to -40%	$200
2	FM (lifestyle) change discount from -45% to -40%	$300
3	FM (lifestyle) change discount from -45% to -40%	$400
4	FM (lifestyle) change discount from -45% to -40% CI (non-residential) Reduce LV surcharge from 200% to 150% Reduce CV surcharge from 120% to 100%	$200
5	FM (lifestyle) change discount from -45% to -40% CI (non-residential) Reduce LV surcharge from 200% to 150% Reduce CV surcharge from 120% to 100%	$300
6	FM (lifestyle) change discount from -45% to -40% CI (non-residential) Reduce LV surcharge from 200% to 150% Reduce CV surcharge from 120% to 100%	$400
7	FM (lifestyle) change discount from -45% to -40% CI (non-residential) Reduce LV surcharge from 200% to 135% Reduce CV surcharge from 120% to 100%	$200

3.21 The first three scenarios were chosen to demonstrate what would happen to rates incidence if no change was made to differential surcharges (except for FM) but if instead changes were made to the level of the UAGC.

3.22 Scenario 7 was chosen as a means of determining how much reduction there would need to be in the differential surcharge for non-residential property in order to have the various differential property groupings bearing a similar proportion of the total rates as they have for 2024/25.

3.23 Scenarios 4 to 6 demonstrate how it is possible to moderate the impact on the non-residential sector by reducing the differential surcharge but not by as much as in scenario 7. Scenarios 5 and 6 have the same differential surcharges as scenario 4 but the UAGC has been increased to $300 and $400 respectively. Officers have recommended the differentials that are used in these scenarios.

3.24 The following graph demonstrates the proportion of the total rates assessed that would be borne by each differential group for each scenario, compared with the actual for 2024/25.

3.25 Interpreting what the graph shows:

· Due to a significant increase in the capital value of the utilities in the streets (which form part of the non-residential category) along with stage 2 of the CV system change, approx. 1% of the total rates relates to the additional rates assessed on these previously non-rated assessments.

· Without changing the differential surcharges (as in scenarios 1 to 3) increasing the level of the UAGC does marginally reduce the total rates payable by the non-residential sector and transfer it to the residential sector – this is because there are many more rating units in the residential category.

· There is a slight increase in the proportion of the rates payable by the rural/semi-serviced sector and this relates in part to the second stage of the implementation of the reduced discount for the FM (‘lifestyle’) properties as agreed by the Council when adopting the changes for 2024/25. Although the change in the discount has been assumed in the modelling, the outcome for each scenario is that the FM properties would still receive a significant discount when compared with single unit residential properties. For example, the rate-in-the dollar for FM for the general rate for scenarios 4-6 is 75% of the single unit residential rate and 79% of the capital-value based targeted rate. In each of the scenarios rates for most individual ratepayers in the FM category will increase by approx. 30%.

3.26 In addition to checking the rates incidence at the differential category level it is necessary to consider the changing incidence at the individual ratepayer level.

3.27 The graphs in Attachment 1 show the number of properties within each band of movement in rates (in both %age and dollar terms). There are graphs for the single unit residential, non-residential and rural differential groups.

3.28 Some initial observations from the graphs include:

· Scenarios 1-3 show significant reductions in rates for many residential properties as the total sum to be collected from each differential category is significantly different from the current year. By comparison these scenarios show significant increases for non-residential properties and rural/semi-serviced.

· Scenarios 4-7 produce an overall outcome by differential category that is more like the distribution for 2024/25. The majority of the rates increases for residential properties are less than 10%. Between 2,900 and 6,900 residential properties would have increases in the 10-25% band – principally those with high ratios of capital value to land value though the number in this band increases as the UAGC is increased.

· In Scenarios 4-7 most of the residential rates increases are less than $500. In Scenario 4 80% of single unit residential rates increases would be less than $250.

· Rates movements for non-residential properties vary widely in all scenarios. This is because of the wide variation in value movements in different parts of the City and because of the range of different capital to land value ratios for the properties in this category.

· Scenario 4 moderates the increases for non-residential properties with very high ratios of capital to land value. Even in this scenario there are over 130 such properties with increases over $10,000 with 3 having increases over $100,000, 9 with increases of between $50,000 and $90,000, 8 with increases of between $30,000 and $50,000 and 20 with increases of between $20,000 and $30,000.

4. Conclusions

4.1 As outlined in the report to the 11 December meeting using the latest rateable values (in combination with the second stage of the move to a greater share of the rates based on the capital value) would transfer a significant sum from the residential to the non-residential (commercial/industrial) sector.

4.2 This report shows the extent of that potential transfer using UAGC at levels of $200, $300 and $400.

4.3 The report also shows the changes to the differential surcharges that would be necessary to enable the proportion of total rates payable by the non-residential sector to be similar to that which applied for 2024/25.

4.4 The report also provides scenarios that would enable the impact of the change of incidence on the non-residential sector to be moderated through the use of a combination of reductions in the differential surcharges and various levels of UAGC.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 The supporting material and consultation document for the annual budget will be updated based on Council’s decisions and then presented to the Council meeting on 5 March for adoption.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 14. Mahere mana urungi, kirirarautanga hihiri 14. Governance and Active Citizenship Plan The objective is: Base our decisions on sound information and advice
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Determining rating valuations every three years is a legislative obligation that is required to enable the Council to set rates. The Council is required to prepare Funding Impact Statements that provide the detail of the proposed rating system as part of each year’s Annual Plan.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Scenarios showing impact on rates incidence ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Submission on the Local Government (Water Services) Bill

Presented By: Mike Monaghan, Group Manager- 3 Waters and Julie Keane, Transition Manager Three Waters

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council agree the submission on the Local Government (Water Services) Bill (Attachment 1).

1. ISSUE

1.1 The purpose of this memorandum is to report to Council, for information, on Council’s submission on the Local Government (Water Services) Bill (WSB).

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 10 December 2024, the WSB was introduced to the House of Representatives. It is the final bill (third) related to the water services reform that the Government intends to pass. This Bill aims to provide arrangements for:

· Arrangements for the new water services delivery system;

· a new economic regulation and consumer protection regime for water services;

· and changes to the water quality regulatory framework and the water services regulator.

2.2 On 18 December 2024, Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee called for submissions on the WSB. The closing date for submissions was set by the Committee for 23 February 2025.

2.3 The Bill is very technical in nature, to respond to that Officers from across the organisation have provided their input.

2.4 At the time of writing this report, the WSB is at the Select Committee stage.

2.5 The key areas highlighted in the submission are:

· The requirement to strengthen Māori representation in the Bill by clarifying a water provider’s obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi, including iwi and hapū without settlements in Treaty obligations and ensuring directors have cultural knowledge of tikanga Māori and Te Tiriti.

· Improve governance with clear enforcement provisions for the Statement of Expectations, mandate essential skills for directors and ensure shareholder approval for subcontracting of significant contracts.

· Ensure alignment of financial principles and ringfencing provisions to ensure consistency between Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation options and the internal business unit option.

· Ensure any new water organisation aligns with the City’s Future Development Strategy (FDS) to support long-term growth and ensure water organisations contribute to capital growth and development objectives.

· Avoid inefficiencies by aligning levy timelines and consolidating water plan requirements to reduce duplication and focus on improving services.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 Monitor outcomes of the final reading of the WSB, likely to be enacted mid-2025.

4. Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant, do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		Yes
The recommendations contribute to Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objectives in 14. Mahere mana urungi, kirirarautanga hihiri 14. Governance and Active Citizenship Plan The objective is: Advocate to Government and other decision-makers on issues and opportunities.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The purpose of Local Government (Water Services) Bill (WSB) is to establish a framework for local government to provide water services in a flexible, cost-effective, financially sustainable, and accountable manner.

Attachments

Draft submission Local Government (Water Services) Bill ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Submission on Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill

Presented By: Todd Taiepa, Manager - Māori Advisory

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled Submission on Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill.

1. ISSUE

1.1 A Bill has recently been proposed by Parliament that seeks to redefine the Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi principles in legislation and require the redefined principles to be used when interpreting legislation.

1.2 The original submission period was 19 November 2024 until 7 January 2025. On 9 January 2025 the deadline was extended until 14 January 2025.

1.3 On 11 December 2024 the Council resolved to submit in opposition to the Bill and agreed that the submission will be authorised by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and that it will be reported back in February.

1.4 The submission approved by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and lodged with Parliament is included as Attachment 1.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 As outlined at the 11 December 2024 meeting, the Bill proposes that a simple, clear, and authoritative approach should be taken to the expression and application of the Treaty Principles by Parliament. It was proposed that this would achieve key outcomes such as reducing uncertainty and complexity in the delivery of government services, and improving fairness and equity in the delivery of those services by placing less emphasis on an indigenous Māori rights framing but rather an emphasis on needs based criteria.

2.2 The Treaty Principles Bill is part of the Government’s coalition agreement with its ACT partner and is part of a wider consideration of how the Crown’s Treaty obligations and responsibilities should appropriately shape the settings for Māori participation and representation, the use of te reo and tikanga Māori, and the broader consideration of how indigenous rights are integrated into a modern liberal democracy.

2.3 While the scope of the Bill is in relation to Government’s position on the Treaty principles, the Council submission emphasises the positive and critical role the principles have played to assist the Council to navigate relationships with its Iwi partner Rangitāne o Manawatū, and this is reflected by the inclusion of Treaty principles in our Partnership Agreement. The principles provide guidance, but also boundaries, and importantly checks and balances for all parties. The principles have also been of enormous value in building strong relationships with the wider iwi Māori communities of Palmerston North.

2.4 While the coalition partners National and New Zealand First have indicated they will not support the Bill beyond its first reading, the Council submission does express concern at the potential negative impacts of initiating and framing wider public discourse on the Treaty, independently of the Tiriti partner.

2.5 Council’s submission strongly rejects the Bill in its entirety and encourages the National and New Zealand First coalition partners to not support it passed the first reading, which they have committed to undertaking. Further, the Government is encouraged to undertake more authentic and genuine engagement with Māori to ensure that meaningful and constructive relationships with the Crown are restored and enhanced.

3. UPDATE

3.1 There were over 300,000 submissions on the Bill. The Justice Committee has begun hearing more than 80 hours of oral submissions which are to be completed by the end of February. Council was one of 15,000 submitters who requested to be heard and was not successful in being selected to appear before the Committee.

3.2 The report on the Bill will be due to Parliament’s Justice Committee later in the year.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 14. Mahere mana urungi, kirirarautanga hihiri 14. Governance and Active Citizenship Plan The objective is: Advocate to the Government and other decision makers on issues and opportunities.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Advocacy by local government to central government means that localised information contributes to the proposed legislation and can influence the impact on local communities.

Attachments

PNCC Submission on the Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Arena Masterplan Steering Group

Presented By: John Lynch, Manager Venues + Events

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council reconvene the Arena Masterplan Steering Group and agree the attached Terms of Reference.

1. ISSUE

1.1 As Council officers progress with the new Arena 5 development planned within the current Long-Term Plan (LTP), the Arena Masterplan Steering Group (Steering Group), who have not met for 3 ½ years, need to be reconvened to oversee the project and keep Elected Members informed on design, tender or design and build processes, developments, and delivery.

1.2 This memorandum presents a reviewed Terms of Reference for Council’s approval before the Steering Group is reconvened.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In 2014, Council undertook a high-level study of Arena Manawatū, now Central Energy Trust Arena (CET Arena) to produce a spatial framework for the site and immediate surrounding streets. Significant improvement of the facility’s relationship and connection to adjoining streets was identified as a key issue. A range of projects aimed to deliver a high-quality site and sports destination with improved street presence, legibility and sporting visibility. This included a new open plaza entrance to Cuba Street and a potential Sports House.

2.2 In 2015, Updates to Section 15 Recreation of the Operative District Plan were made resulting in a specific Arena Zone (Section 15.2.5) and embedding the Arena spatial framework as a Planning Map (Map 15.2). Funding of priority streams of work was allocated into the 2015 - 2025 Long Term Plan including Council agreeing to provide a $1.5M funding grant for a Sports House on the site.

2.3 In 2017, a more detailed Masterplan study was then prepared to further test and develop previous work undertaken. Key outcomes underpinning the Masterplan to create a higher quality sporting destination with improved street presence, legibility and sporting visibility remained. Further contextual analysis of the planning framework, site conditions, built form, open space patterns and general assessment of facilities were undertaken. Specific briefs for Arenas 1-6 were prepared and a range of concept options including a new Sports House tested to best address site-wide requirements. Options were costed and assessed, and a preferred Masterplan option emerged (Option 3). Funding for Option 3 priority projects were then allocated into the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

2.4 Land was acquired at the corner of Cuba and Waldegrave Street and the site made good in preparation for construction works for a new entrance plaza. From 2018, with oversight from the Arena Steering Group, detailed design of priority projects commenced with the first artificial turf at Arena 6 completed late 2019.

2.5 During this time the proposal for a Sports House to be located at Central Energy Trust Arena was withdrawn by Sport Manawatū. Attention then shifted to construction delivery with the Cuba Street entrance plaza and overbridge, reconfigured speedway pits and south stand base plinth and ablutions completed in April 2021.

2.6 This significant change has resulted in a more welcoming public entrance from Cuba Street, an enhanced visitor and fan experience for users of Arena 1 and improved operations management for larger events such as speedway, rugby, concerts and community events. These changes have drawn positive national design attention with Central Energy Trust Arena receiving a handful of prestigious Toitanga and public space design awards.

2.7 With this tranche of work now complete, updating the Masterplan to reflect progress made, understand any new or emerging needs and confirm all future projects are the next logical steps in continuing to provide long term vision and guidance for co-ordinated and integrated development of Central Energy Trust Arena.

2.8 Sport and recreation facility planning processes are occurring in parallel. Needs assessments guided by the Regional Sports Facilities Plan 2018 and the Palmerston North ‘City Specific’ sections updated in 2022 have informed the Masterplan review. Central Energy Trust Arena is recognised as having a unique role in the region for meeting demand for further sports facilities. Needs have been canvassed for additional indoor court and sports field facilities identified for the site. A regional GymSports feasibility study is underway and Central Energy Trust Arena is a potential location being considered.

2.9 The Arena site does not sit in isolation to its immediate surrounds. Other projects – the Cuba Street link and Featherston Street cycleway directly relate to the immediate street network that surrounds the Arena site and these have been highlighted within the updated Masterplan. It is essential to ensure these projects are considered in relationship to the ongoing development of the Arena and that wider City Centre transformation and active transport outcomes to better connect and access the site are achieved.

2.10 Three significant projects have been completed since the original Masterplan was adopted at Arena.

· In 2018 retractable seating was installed in Arena 2 providing 2,282 seats at a cost of $1.5M

· In 2019 an artificial turf was installed at the rear fields behind the grandstand at a cost of $1.4M

· In 2021 the new Entrance Plaza and Speedway Pits project was completed at a cost of $17.4M

2.11 In 2023 the Arena Masterplan was again reviewed, updated and adopted by Council. The latest review was undertaken as:

· it had been 5 years since the Arena Masterplan was last revised,

· there has been a changing landscape in the markets which Arena operates in,

· there is a more coordinated approach to the development of facilities regionally,

· ensuring the facilities meet the current and future needs of the community.

2.12 The Arena Masterplan Steering Group last convened in mid-2021 at the completion of the Entrance Plaza, Speedway Pits and Ablution Block project which was delivered on time, and within budget. As there were no further projects planned in the Council’s LTP, it was determined there was no further need for the Steering Group to meet. Strategic Planning and Infrastructure have been consulted in putting the report and draft terms of reference together.

2.13 The appointments from Council for the Steering Group have already been decided following the last election and hold until the next election. These are The Mayor, Cr Arnott, Cr Dennison, Cr Hapeta, and Cr Meehan.

2.14 In the current LTP the new Arena 5 development is included with $.5M in Year 1, $8M in Year 2, and $8.5M in Year 3.

2.15 Council Officers within the Strategic Planning, Infrastructure, and Venues + Events divisions of Council have, through the first 6 months of the current financial year, brought together a working group of stakeholders relevant to the new Arena 5 development. Officers have gathered key requirements and considerations from this group to assist in the development of a design brief in relation to the project and to take to market. Officers are now working through the appropriate options whether to undertake a standard tender process or whether a design and build process is the right path forward. Officers are working with the Procurement team to understand the benefits and risks associated with the various processes and the appropriate course to put forward for consideration.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 An initial design brief is expected to be completed in February which will detail the requirements of the new facility, spatial and environmental considerations, and allow for conceptual design and anticipated costings to be established.

3.2 The Arena Masterplan Steering Group is required to be reconvened to oversee aspects of Masterplan projects, current and anticipated in the future years of the LTP.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 2: He tāone whakaihiihi, tapatapahi ana Goal 2: A creative and exciting city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 6. Mahere rēhia 6. Recreation and Play Plan The objective is: Provide community sport and sport-event facilities at Central Energy Trust Arena
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Arena provides accessible and affordable opportunities for community sport and recreation. Opportunities for communities to take part in active sport and recreation are prioritised over other uses of the Arena.

Attachments

Draft Arena Masterplan Steering Group Terms of Reference ⇩

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Order of Candidate Names on Voting Papers 2025

PRESENTED BY: Hannah White, Manager Governance

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council agree the following order for arranging the names of candidates on voting documents for Palmerston North City Council, pursuant to Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001:

EITHER

(a) alphabetical order of surname, OR

(b) pseudo-random order, OR

(c) random order.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Council can decide which way candidates’ names will be ordered on local election voting documents.
OPTION 1:	Alphabetical order of surname
Community Views	Community views have not been canvassed.
Benefits	Simple to locate candidates’ names on voting documents. This is the order used in the candidate information leaflet included in the voting envelope. Parliamentary elections use alphabetical order, so voters are familiar with this method.
Risks	Potential for candidates with surnames starting with letters late in the alphabet to be disadvantaged.
Financial	No difference in cost for the options.
OPTION 2:	Pseudo-random order
Community Views	Community views have not been canvassed.
Benefits	Equal opportunity for candidates to be at the top of the voting paper.
Risks	Potential for those candidates with names that are drawn first to be advantaged. Not as user-friendly for voters if they are referring to the candidate profile booklet which lists candidates alphabetically.
Financial	There are some minor additional compliance costs including public notice and witness of the ballot.
OPTION 3:	Random order
Community Views	Community views have not been canvassed.
Benefits	This is the order residents and non-ratepayer electors are familiar with for Palmerston North elections. As the order of names varies from one voting document to another, this removes any positioning advantage for any candidate.
Risks	Not as user-friendly for inexperienced voters who may find it confusing if they are referring to the candidate profile booklet which lists candidates alphabetically and comparing this to locate preferred candidates on the voting paper. Any concerns over transparency can be verified by open inspection of the technology used to randomise.
Financial	No difference in cost for the options.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Local Electoral Act 2001 (the Act) and the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 (the Regulations) allows Council to make certain local decisions regarding the election processes.

1.2 Candidates’ names may be ordered in one of three ways on local election voting documents: alphabetical, pseudo-random or random.

1.3 Council may determine the order by resolution prior to the Electoral Officer giving public notice of the election on 6 August 2025. If Council does not make a decision under clause 31(3) of the Regulations candidate names will be, by default, listed in alphabetical order by surname.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Up until the 2001 elections, candidates’ names on voting documents were required to be listed in alphabetical order, by surname. Since 2004, the Local Electoral Regulations allowed the Council to determine the manner of listing names.

2.2 For elections held from 2004 to 2013, Palmerston North City Council decided that names should continue to be listed in alphabetical order by surname. However, since the 2015 by-elections and for every election and by-election since Palmerston North City Council has decided that names of candidates were to be listed in random order.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Alphabetical

The order of names of candidates is the same for all voting documents and is determined by initial letters of candidates’ surnames.

3.2 Option 2: Pseudo-random

The order of names of candidates on voting documents is the same for all documents but is determined by ballot rather than alphabet. Ballot is held under supervision of a Justice of the Peace.

3.3 Option 3: Random

The order of names of candidates varies from one voting document to another.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Councils across the country use all three methods of ordering. The most common is alphabetical, followed by random, with only a small handful using pseudo-random.

4.2 The strength of random order is that theoretically it is the fairest method for all candidates.

Research in 2021 analysed the impacts of candidate order on election outcomes in the last four Auckland Council elections. The overall analysis suggests that being listed first appears to increase a candidate’s vote share by an average of 1.0 percentage point. Middle ballot positions deviate from the expected vote share in a random manner by approximately ±0.5%. Candidates listed in later ballot positions appear to receive slightly lower vote share than expected. Further analysis did not show any observable effect of candidate order on actual election outcomes, that is, whether candidates were elected or not. This was in line with Australian findings across federal elections between 1984 and 2004.

It should be noted that the observed effect of primary bias does not occur to the same degree for all. Research from outside of New Zealand has suggested that where voters lack sufficient information to make informed choice, they are more likely to be biased towards those names higher on a ballot paper.

Palmerston North’s case of a combination of STV where voters rank candidates, may also increase the primary bias, in that people may start at top of page and work down.

4.3 The strength of alphabetical order is user experience.

There are several obstacles for voters. Local election turnout is frustrated by having to use an unfamiliar postal system. Opening, reading and understanding local government voting documents requires sustained attention, an ability to read and proficiency in the English language. Voters in Palmerston North use two different electoral systems^{^[1]} and are expected to be familiar with each.

With 13 seats in the Te Hirawanui General Ward, we have seen upwards of 40 candidates. Looking for a preferred candidate among a long list of candidates could be further off-putting for voters, where the order in the candidate booklet does not match that on the voting paper.

In the 2022 local government election both Horizons and Palmerston used random order. It should be noted that Horizons is yet to make their decision for 2025. There is a risk that there may be additional confusion if Palmerston North and Horizons ended up with different ways of ordering names on the same set of ballot papers.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Each ordering option has strengths and weaknesses. Elected members must decide which method best aligns with their priorities.

6. Next actions

6.1 Public notice of the order to be used on voting documents will be placed on 6 August 2025.

6.2 Voting papers will be prepared accordingly, following the closing of candidate nominations.

7. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: (Not Applicable)
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 14. Mahere mana urungi, kirirarautanga hihiri 14. Governance and Active Citizenship Plan The objective is: Run local body elections and any polls, including a Representation Review
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Opportunity for local decision toward the encouragement of participation in elections and a fair election process.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Appointment to the Heritage Reference Group

Presented By: Hannah White, Manager- Governance

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council appoint Councillor Rachel Bowen as Council’s representative on the Heritage Reference Group until October 2025.

1. ISSUE

At its meeting of 11 December 2024, Council agreed a terms of reference for the Heritage Reference Group. The terms of reference states that the membership of the will include one elected member who will act as a liaison between Council and the Group.

This report recommends the appointment of Cr Rachel Bowen as the elected member representative on the Heritage Reference Group.

2. BACKGROUND

The purpose of the Reference Group is to,

“provide expert heritage advice on local projects. This group will act as a conduit between the Council and the heritage community, ensuring that heritage considerations are integrated into planning and development processes.

The Heritage Reference Group will:

· connect projects with knowledge holders and existing groups in the sector

· provide guidance on which stories to tell through local projects

· advocate to Council on strategies and plans that may have heritage implications”

Expressions of interest were sought from Elected Members willing to represent Council on the Reference Group. Cr Bowen was the sole nominee.

3. NEXT STEPS

Expressions of Interest for the community members have been advertised and close mid- February 2025. The first task of the appointed elected member will be to participate in the selection process for the community members.

Appoint the group and host the first meeting in March 2025.

All elected member appointments will be reviewed after the triennial election in October 2025.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 2: He tāone whakaihiihi, tapatapahi ana Goal 2: A creative and exciting city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 11. Mahere mō te kanorau koiora me Te Awa o Manawatū 4. Heritage Plan The objective is: Establish a volunteer city heritage reference group to contribute to heritage planning.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	A heritage reference group will aid the Council in promoting the city’s social, economic, environmental, and cultural identity. There will be spill-over benefits to social, economic, and cultural well-being through a more explicit recognition of the city’s history in public projects and initiatives.

Attachments

NIL

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 12 February 2025

TITLE: Council Work Schedule

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated 12 February 2025

COUNCIL WORK SCHEDULE 12 February 2024

#	Estimated Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause
1	~~early~~ mid 2025	Report back on Investment Options for PN Airport	GM Corporate Services		6 December 2023 Clause 197-23
2	12 Feb 2025	Agree LWDW Consultation Document	Chief Executive	Hearings - Sustainability Committee 16 April	5 Feb 2025 Clause 6-25
	~~12 Feb 2025~~	~~Report back – Submission Treaty Bill.~~	~~GM Strategic Planning~~		~~11 Dec 2024~~ ~~Clause 221 -24~~
	~~12 Feb 2025~~	~~Review of Rating Incidences~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~		~~11 Dec 2024~~ ~~Clause 213 - 24~~
	~~12 Feb 2025~~	~~Review of Fees and Charges 25/26~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
	~~12 Feb 2025~~	~~Draft Annual Budget 2025/26~~	~~Chief Executive~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
3	5 March 2025	Draft Annual Budget 2025/26 for consultation	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
4	~~5 March 2025~~	~~Remits from PNCC for consideration~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~	No remits received	~~Terms of Reference~~
5	5 March 2025	Alternative Options for BPO - Nature Calls	GM Infrastructure	Waiting on release of Taumata Arowai standards	Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.11 -25 (rec 2)
6	2 April 2025	Extension of Contract – Nature Calls	GM Infrastructure		11 Dec 2024 clause 224- 24
7	2 April 2025	Review of CEDA Directors Policy	GM Corporate Services		2 Oct 2024 Clause 172
8	30 April / 1 May 2025	Hearings for the Annual Budget 2025/26	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
9	7 May 2025	Deliberations for Local Water Done Well	GM Infrastructure	following Hearings at Sustainability Committee – 16 April
10	7 May 2025	Review of PNCC Appointment of Directors Policy.	GM Corporate Services		2 Oct 2024 Clause 172
11	14 May 2025	Deliberations for the Annual Budget 25/26	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
12	4 June 2025	Remits received from other Territorial Authorities	GM Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
13	4 June 2025	2024 Residents Survey – Action Plan	GM Strategic Planning		Terms of Reference
14	4 June 2025	Adopt Annual Budget 2025-26	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
15	4 June 2025	Agree LWDW - Water Services Delivery Plan	Chief Executive
16	25 June 2025	Set the Rates for 2025-26	GM Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
17	25 June 2025	Approve Borrowing for 2025-26	GM Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
18	25 June 2025	Agree revised BPO – Nature Calls	GM Infrastructure
19	6 August 2025	Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan Steering Group – 6-monthly update	GM Strategic Planning		Terms of Reference
20	8 Oct 2025	Parking Contract Review Update – Frog Parking	GM Infrastructure		4 September 2024 Clause 156-24
21	8 Oct 2025	Adopt Annual Report 2024-25	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
22	8 Oct 2025	Appointment of Trustees on Council Controlled Organisations	General Manager Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
23	TBC	Summerhays Reports – Partnership Models Expressions of Interest	GM Infrastructure	Lying on the Table	1 May 2024 Clause 66-24 and 74 -24
24	TBC	Effectiveness of Civics Education Initiatives – Annual progress report	GM Customer & Community		29 May 2024 Clause 95.29 -24

[1] Single Transferable Vote (STV) for Palmerston North City Council and First Past the Post (FPP) for Horizons Regional Council. This is exacerbated this year as FPP will also be used for the referendum for both Palmerston North and Horizons.

Grant Smith (Mayor)
Debi Marshall-Lobb (Deputy Mayor)
Mark Arnott	Leonie Hapeta
Brent Barrett	Lorna Johnson
Rachel Bowen	Billy Meehan
Vaughan Dennison	Orphée Mickalad
Lew Findlay (QSM)	Karen Naylor
Roly Fitzgerald	William Wood
Patrick Handcock (ONZM)	Kaydee Zabelin