Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 7 May 2025

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 02 April 2025, commencing at 9.06am.

Members

Present:

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

Members Present Online:

Councillors Leonie Hapeta, and Karen Naylor.

Apologies:

Councillor Rachel Bowen (late arrival) and Leonie Hapeta (early departure).

Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 10.10am after consideration of clause 52-25.

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

44-25

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the apologies.

Clause 44-25 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, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

45-25	Presentation - Massey University Foundation Presentation, by Mitch Murdoch, Director of the Massey University Foundation. Mitch presented the Foundation’s vision to regenerate the riparian corridor along the Massey University side of the Manawatū river. She sought financial support from Council of $1M (over three years). Presentation appended separately to the minutes. The Mayor moved an additional motion to refer the presentation to the Annual Plan process, so it can be considered alongside other proposed community and Council projects.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That the Council receive the presentation for information.
	Clause 45-25 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, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 2. That Council refer Massey University Foundation’s presentation to the Annual Plan process.
	Clause 45-25 above was carried 9 votes to 6, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Vaughan Dennison, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Orphée Mickalad Against: Councillors Lew Findlay, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

46-25

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

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

Clause 46-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Reports

47-25

The Globe Theatre Trust: Six-Month Report 1 July - 31 December 2024 and Draft Statement of Intent 2024-27

Presented by Gerry Keating, Manager and John Adams, Chair of the Globe Theatre Trust and Sarah Claridge, Governance Advisor.

The Governance Advisor corrected a figure in clause 4.9 of the report: Operations over this reporting period has created a cash deficit of $27k not $43k as stated.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the Six-Month Performance Report 1 July - 31 December 2024 (Attachment 1) submitted by the Globe Theatre Trust.

2. That Council receive the draft Statement of Intent 2025-28 (Attachment 3) submitted by the Globe Theatre Trust.

3. That Council agree that the recommended comments on the draft Statement of Intent 2025–28 outlined in Table 3 be advised to the Globe Theatre Trust Board.

Clause 47-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

48-25

Transport Emergency Works

Report, presented by Glen O'Connor, Manager Transport.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve an increase in the budget for programme 2380 Citywide – Transport – Emergency Reinstatements by $451k to be funded by

a. an increase in capital revenue of $111k from New Zealand Transport Authority – Waka Kotahi

b. and a budget decrease of $340k from programme 1054 Ashhurst – Water Quality Improvements

Clause 48-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

49-25

Roxburgh Crescent Land Classification

Report, presented by Aaron Phillips - Activities Manager Parks.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council declare approximately 400 m² of the access leg portion of Pt Lot 2 DP 60866 contained in certificate of title WN31C/75 to be road reserve.

2. That Council declare approximately 5,084 m² of Pt Lot 2 DP 60866 contained in certificate of title WN31C/75 on and over the stop bank of the Manawatū River Park to be recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

3. That Council make the reserve declaration and classifications in resolution 1 and 2 subject to:

a. The Plan Change E: Roxburgh Residential Area becoming operative, and

b. Subdivision of the surrounding land that ensures that the road reserve portion of this reserve declaration is contiguous with a vested road reserve at the time of subdivision.

4. That Council note that:

a. the precise partition of area between the road and recreation reserves portions will be determined at the time of the subdivision of the surrounding land in order to align with the road reserves created during that residential subdivision.

b. The portion to be declared road reserve will require subdivision from the portion that will be recreation reserve. This will be carried out at the time of subdivision of the surrounding land and associated roads.

Clause 49-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

50-25

Elected Members' Meeting Attendance Statistics - 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2024

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White - Manager Governance.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Elected Members’ Meeting Attendance Statistics - 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2024’ dated 2 April 2025 for information.

Clause 50-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

51-25

Council Work Schedule

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated 2 April 2025.

Clause 51-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

52-25

Risk & Assurance Committee Part I Public - 12 March 2025

Councillor Dennison presented the recommendation below:

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded William Wood.

RESOLVED

1. That Council adopt the recommendation from the Risk & Assurance Committee of 12 March 2025:

Setting Council's Risk Management Appetite and Tolerance Levels (clause 9-25)

Memorandum, presented by Stephen Minton, Risk Management Advisor.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council reconfirm the risk appetite and risk tolerance levels as noted in section 3.1 and 3.2 of the memorandum titled ‘Setting Council’s Risk Management Appetite and Tolerance levels’, presented to the Risk and Assurance Committee on 12 March 2025.

Clause 52-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 10.10am.

Exclusion of Public

53-25

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Patrick Handcock.

RESOLVED

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

Te Āpiti Ashhurst (3 bridges) Loop - Land Purchase and Progress

NEGOTIATIONS:

This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings

s7(2)(i)

20.

Nature Calls - Lead Technical Consultant contract extension

THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL:

Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position

and NEGOTIATIONS:

This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings

s7(2)(b)(ii) and s7(2)(i)

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.

Clause 53-25 above was carried 14 votes to 0, 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, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

The public part of the meeting finished at 10.12am

The meeting adjourned for 27 minutes

Confirmed 7 May 2025

Mayor

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2025

TITLE: Consideration of options to take forward for Nature Calls

PRESENTED BY: Mike Monaghan Manager 3 Waters and Anna Lewis Project Manager

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council provide direction to the Chief Executive on which of the Nature Calls discharge options are to be removed from further consideration and no longer progressed.

analysis of options

Officers have prepared a comprehensive list of potential wastewater discharge solutions for the Nature Calls programme for Council’s consideration. These are presented below in the Options analysis table. However, given the current uncertainty surrounding the final form of the national wastewater standards, officers advise that the shortlisting of options should be deferred until final standards are formally released. Instead, a preferred approach would be for Elected Members to indicate via resolution which options they do not wish officers to continue to work on, recording the rationale for the exclusion.

Work may then continue, on a no regrets basis, on any remaining options until a shortlisting exercise is undertaken post standard confirmation. This approach, anticipated mid/end August 2025, will significantly reduce the risk of progressing with options that may ultimately fail to meet regulatory compliance standards, and will allow Council to undertake a public consultation process based on thoroughly reviewed and standards-aligned solutions.

While this revised timeline may mean that a final decision on the Best Practicable Option (BPO) cannot be made by the current Council, it creates an opportunity for a more robust and meaningful engagement process with iwi. This extended timeframe will enable deeper incorporation of cultural values and perspectives into the assessment and decision-making process, ensuring that the final selected solution reflects a balanced, inclusive, and future-proofed outcome.

Problem or Opportunity	Following consultation and deliberations for the Long-Term Plan (LTP)2024-34, Council resolved that the budget for the Nature Calls project would be no more than $480M (excluding inflation). Council also instructed the CE to review the BPO options and considering any new and emerging technology. The project team have completed this review in consideration of the recently released Draft Wastewater Standards (‘standards’). The options are outlined in detail below for Council’s consideration.
OPTION A:	Discharge to River at Ōpiki Treated wastewater discharged to Manawatū River at Ōpiki Bridge only, with no land discharge.
Treatment and assumptions	· High level of treatment (typically Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR), or similar with high rate activated sludge), value engineering applied · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): - BOD - 10 mg/L - TSS - 10 mg/L - E.coli - 1300 cfu/100 mL - TN - 5 mg/L - TP – 1mg/l · Treated wastewater discharged to Manawatū River at Ōpiki (near the State Highway 56 bridge).
Considerations and risks	· Low dilution ratio standards apply · WWTP upgrade to high level treatment (with value engineering) would provide a compliant discharge · Conveyance and infrastructure costs significant · Unlikely to be supported by Iwi
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Complies with Standards
Does it meet the Project Objectives	General/strong alignment
Financial	Cost - $362M (meets LTP budget). Cost includes conveyance to and new river discharge structure at Ōpiki

OPTION B1:	Discharge to River at Totara Rd All treated wastewater is discharged, at existing location to the Manawatū River at Totara Road
Treatment and assumptions	· High level of treatment (typically MBR, or similar with high rate activated sludge), value engineering applied · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): § BOD - 10 mg/L § TSS - 10 mg/L § E.coli - 1300 cfu/100 mL § TN - 5 mg/L (risk assessment at site will determine this) § TP - 0.1 mg/L (less than half median river flow); 0.2 mg/L (half median to median river flow) and 1.7 mg/L (above median flow)
Considerations and Risks	· Low dilution ratio standards will apply for BOD, TSS and E.coli · Site specific assessment required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus, but even at high level of treatment initial advice indicates that unacceptable periphyton growth might occur in outer years at low flow periods, noting: · There is high uncertainty on the prediction model, and standards are silent on assessment required i.e. national bottom line or OnePlan levels · Significant improvement to discharge quality from current treatment plant · Mixing at Totara Rd needs improving · Could discharge via wetland/land passage
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Risk that Option B1 does not meet site specific assessment for periphyton
Does it meet the Project Objectives	General/strong alignment
Financial	· Cost - $285M (meets LTP budget) · Costs do not include land passage/wetland system, as this is undefined.

OPTION B2:	B1 + Future Adaptive Management Solution to address periphyton risk All treated wastewater is discharged, at existing location to the Manawatū River at Totara Road
Treatment and assumptions	· High level of treatment (typically MBR, or similar with high rate activated sludge), value engineering applied · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): § BOD - 10 mg/L § TSS - 10 mg/L § E.coli - 1300 cfu/100 mL § TN - 5 mg/L (risk assessment at site will determine this) § TP - 0.1 mg/L (less than half median river flow); 0.2 mg/L (half median to median river flow) and 1.7 mg/L (above median flow) · Option B2 involves a future adaptive management solution that will be engaged prior to the periphyton risk level being reached by the river discharge. This may include alternative discharge options or locations, such as discharge to land-based schemes, discharge at other river locations (option C as an example), recycled reuse and/or any other future adaptive management opportunities.
Considerations and Risks	· Low dilution ratio standards will apply for BOD, TSS and E.coli · Site specific assessment required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus, but even at high level of treatment initial advice indicates that unacceptable periphyton growth might occur in outer years at low flow periods, noting: · There is high uncertainty on the prediction model, and standards are silent on assessment required i.e. national bottom line or OnePlan levels · Significant improvement to discharge quality from current treatment plant · Mixing at Totara Rd needs improving · Could discharge via wetland/land passage
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Likely complies, require site specific assessment at Totara Road for periphyton assessment (lower risk as future adaptive management options will consider periphyton levels.
Does it meet the Project Objectives?	General/strong alignment
Financial	Cost - $285M + future cost for Adaptive Management
OPTION C:	Discharge to River at Totara Rd and Ōpiki (at low flows) Primary discharge to the Manawatū River at Totara Road only during high flows, with secondary discharge near Ōpiki bridge only during low flows, with no land discharge.
Treatment and assumptions	· High level of treatment (typically MBR, or similar with high rate activated sludge), value engineering applied · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): § BOD - 10 mg/L § TSS – 10 mg/L § E.coli - 1300 cfu/100 mL § TN - 5 mg/L (risk assessment at site will determine this) § TP - 0.1 mg/L (less than half median river flow); 0.2 mg/L (half median to median river flow) and 1.7 mg/L (above median flow) · Conveyance and discharge to Manawatū River at Ōpiki during low river flows, being a soft-bottom portion of the river, which would allow the discharge standards to be applied · Discharge to Totara Rd during high river flows assumed to be acceptable for limiting periphyton growth, but to be confirmed through site-specific risk assessment. · Discharging at Totara Rd rather than Ōpiki would save pumping energy costs.
Considerations and Risks	· Low dilution ratio standards apply at Ōpiki, therefore WWTP upgrade to high level of treatment required · Site specific assessment required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for discharge at Totara Rd during high river flows. May allow reduction in OPEX by reducing need for alum dosing and reducing annual pumping costs. · May have scope for optimisation of flows to Totara Rd when doing site specific assessment
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Would comply with standards at Ōpiki, nutrient standards do not apply at Totara Rd and would require site specific periphyton assessment (albeit a lower risk as discharged at this location during high flows only).
Does it meet the Project Objectives?	General/strong alignment
Financial	Cost - $363M (meets LTP budget) Cost includes conveyance to and new river discharge structure at Ōpiki.
OPTION D:	Discharge to River at Totara Rd and Ōpiki (at low flows); and Discharge to Land (75% Average Dry Weather Flows (ADWF)) Manawatū River discharge near Totara Road and below Ōpiki Bridge, with removal of 75% ADWF to land when the river is below 37.5m3/s)
Treatment and assumptions	· High level of treatment (typically MBR, or similar with high rate activated sludge), value engineering applied · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): - BOD - 5 mg/L - TSS - 5 mg/L - E.coli - 10 cfu/100 mL - TN - 5 mg/L (risk assessment at site will determine this) - TP - 0.1 mg/L (less than half median river flow); 0.2 mg/L (half median to median river flow) and 1.7 mg/L (above median flow) · The following risk mitigation measures are assumed: - Discharge 75% of ADWF to land when river is below half median flow (37.5m³/s) - Remaining treated wastewater to be discharged to Manawatū River at Ōpiki during low flows, being a soft-bottom portion of the river, which will meet discharge standards - Discharge to Totara Rd in higher flows
Considerations and Risks	· Low dilution ratio standards apply at Ōpiki, therefore WWTP upgrade to high level of treatment required · Site specific assessment required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for discharge at Totara Rd during high river flows. May allow reduction in OPEX by reducing need for alum dosing and reducing annual pumping costs. · May have scope for optimisation of flows to Totara Rd when doing site specific assessment · Land discharge requires a site and a site-specific risk and land capability assessment
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	· Low dilution standards likely apply at Ōpiki · Site specific assessment required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for discharge at Totara Rd during high flows · Land discharge requires a specific site · Ōpiki discharge unlikely to be supported by iwi
Does it meet the Project Objectives?	General alignment
Financial	Cost - $616-$714M (exceeds LTP budget) · Upper bounds of estimates for land procurement, application and conveyance to land. · Cost includes conveyance to and new river discharge structure at Ōpiki
OPTION E:	Discharge to River at Totara Rd and Ōpiki; Discharge to Land (soil moisture dependent, >75% ADWF) Treated wastewater is discharged to the Manawatū River, with discharge of at least 75% ADWF to land driven by soil moisture (aiming to discharge as much treated wastewater to land as possible for as long as possible during extreme low river flow periods).
Treatment and assumptions	· Sufficient wastewater is diverted to land to allow the “High Dilution” standards to apply to the river discharge · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): § BOD - 20 mg/L § TSS - 30 mg/L § E.coli - 32,000 cfu/100 mL § TN - 35 mg/L § TP - 10 mg/L · Minimal upgrade to existing WWTP · ‘High Dilution’ standards can be achieved by upgrading the existing aerated ponds using an attached growth reactor to meet the ammonia standard. (Note cost is a very high-level estimate) · Assumes that this will be sufficient to meet nutrient requirements of a site-specific risk assessment for discharge to the Manawatū River at Totara Rd, using High Dilution standards as a basis
Considerations and Risks	· Depending on where in the Manawatū River the discharge occurs, either a site-specific assessment will be required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for discharge, or compliance with low dilution wastewater standards for Nitrogen and Phosphorus will be required · Discharging to hard-bottomed river and only at times when river flows are not low may allow for lower upgrade to the WWTP than previous options, however noting current cBOD and TSS do not meet high dilution standard, so some upgrade still required · Technical advice received previously noted that the discharge to land could be optimised if the amount of discharge is driven by soil moisture. Quantities are yet to be modelled, and the level of treatment required to be determined from the model, with the idea that less treatment may be required · Land discharge requires a site and a site-specific risk and land capability assessment · Unlikely to be supported by iwi due to lower standard of treatment applied to wastewater for this option
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Risk associated with the requirement for two site specific assessments (one for periphyton and another for land discharge)
Does it meet the Project Objectives?	General alignment
Financial	Cost - $444- $599M (lower end of the band meets LTP budget, upper end exceeds LTP budget). Upper bounds of estimates taken for land procurement, application and conveyance to land. Cost includes conveyance to and new river discharge structure at Ōpiki.
OPTION F:	Discharge to Ocean Treated wastewater discharged to the ocean, with discharge to the Manawatū River in exceptional circumstances (approx. 3% of the time)
Treatment and assumptions	· No upgrades to WWTP (current level of treatment), plus provision for growth and pump stations required for conveyance (approx. $60M) · Conveyance is approximately 30km, with no defined location, to a long ocean outfall from the foreshore (approx. 2km)
Considerations and Risks	· Assumes discharge in exceptional circumstances would be at Totara Road, where site-specific Nitrogen and Phosphorus assessment can be used to show no unacceptable effects from discharge at times of very high flow in the river · Assumes plant upgrade for growth only · Current treatment meets standards for Ocean discharge · Note poor alignment with mauri of ocean, unsupported by iwi/hapū and not previously supported by Council on cultural grounds. Noting that the project objectives only relate to mauri of Manawatū River · Can meet standards with current level of treatment, if discharging to open ocean 500m offshore
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Complies with standards
Does it meet the Project Objectives?	General/strong alignment (Note: Project objectives only relate to mauri of Manawatū River)
Financial	Cost - $529M (exceeds LTP budget) Costs taken from June 2021 calculation, with 24.8% escalation to 2024 costs.
OPTION G:	Discharge to River at Totara Rd; Discharge to Land (Staged move) As for Option H but with application for short term consent or longer-term consent with staged move from river to land: Incur plant upgrade cost now (approx. $284M) and then gradually incur land cost
Treatment and assumptions	· High level of treatment (typically MBR, or similar with high rate activated sludge), value engineering applied · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): - BOD - 10 mg/L - TSS - 10 mg/L - E.coli - 1300 cfu/100 mL - TN - 5 mg/L (risk assessment at site will determine this) - TP - 0.1 mg/L (less than half median river flow); 0.2 mg/L (half median to median river flow) and 1.7 mg/L (above median flow) · Assumes a staged approach to discharge to land, moving towards a discharge of 75% Average Dry Weather Flow to land when the River is below half median flow (37.5m3/s). Remaining flow discharges to the Manawatū River at Totara Rd.
Considerations and Risks	· Low dilution ratio standards apply for BOD, TSS and E.coli · Site specific assessment required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus, but even at high level of treatment initial is that unacceptable periphyton growth might occur in low flow periods with 100% discharge to river · There is high uncertainty on the prediction model, and standards are silent on assessment required i.e. national bottom line or Horizon OnePlan levels · Depending on predicted periphyton effect, may not be possible to stage discharge as proposed.
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Risk associated with the requirement for two site specific assessments (one for periphyton and another for land discharge). Potentially non-compliant for periphyton initially.
Does it meet the Project Objectives?	General/strong alignment
Financial	Cost - $559 - $656M (Exceeds LTP budget) · Above cost range represents the final ‘stage’ of capex costs, i.e. upgraded WWTP, conveyance and application to land · Initial cost for upgraded WWTP approx. $284M · Range relates to upper and lower bounds for land procurement and conveyance
OPTION H:	Discharge to River at Totara Rd; Discharge to Land Treated wastewater is discharged to the Manawatū River, with discharge of 75% ADWF to land when the River is below half median flow (37.5m3/s). Discharge to the Manawatū River at Totara Rd
Treatment and assumptions	· High level of treatment (typically MBR, or similar with high rate activated sludge), value engineering applied · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): - BOD - 10 mg/L - TSS - 10 mg/L - E.coli - 10 cfu/100 mL - TN - 5 mg/L (risk assessment at site will determine this) - TP - TP - 0.1 mg/L (less than half median river flow); 0.2 mg/L (half median to median river flow) and 1.7 mg/L (above median flow) · Assumes a discharge of 75% Average Dry Weather Flow to land when the Manawatū River is below half median flow (37.5m3/s). Remaining flow discharges to the river at Totara Rd
Considerations and Risks	· Low dilution ratio standards apply for BOD, TSS and E.coli · Site specific assessment required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus · There is high uncertainty on the prediction model, and standards are silent on assessment required i.e. national bottom line or Horizons OnePlan levels
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Risk associated with the requirement for two site specific assessments (one for periphyton and another for land discharge). Potentially non-compliant for periphyton.
Does it meet the Project Objectives?	General alignment
Financial	Cost - $559 - $656M (Exceeds LTP budget) Range relates to upper and lower bounds for land procurement and conveyance
OPTION I:	Discharge to River at Longburn; Discharge to Land (Previous BPO and option that consent was submitted for) Treated wastewater is discharged to the Manawatū River, with discharge of 75% ADWF to land when the River is below half median flow (37.5m3/s). Discharge to the Manawatū River at Longburn
Treatment and assumptions	· High level of treatment (typically MBR, or similar with high rate activated sludge), value engineering applied · Treated wastewater standards (annual median concentrations): - BOD - 10 mg/L - TSS – 10 mg/L - E.coli - 1300 cfu/100 mL - TN - 5 mg/L (risk assessment at site will determine this) - TP - 0.1 mg/L (less than half median river flow); 0.2 mg/L (half median to median river flow) and 1.7 mg/L (above median flow) · Assumes that the discharge of 75% Average Dry Weather Flow to land when the River is below half median flow (37.5m3/s). Remaining flow discharges to the Manawatū River at Longburn. Note: This is the consent that was submitted in December 2022.
Considerations and Risks	· Fatally flawed on cost · Site specific assessment required to determine allowable levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus · WWTP upgrade to high level of treatment (with value engineering)
Compliance with draft wastewater standards?	Risk associated with the requirement for two site specific assessments (one for periphyton and another for land discharge).
Does it meet the Project Objectives?	General Alignment
Financial	$598-$696M Range relates to upper and lower bounds for land procurement and conveyance and includes conveyance to and new river discharge structure at Longburn.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Background and previous council decisions

1.1 The Long-Term Plan Resolution on the 29 May 2024 concluded–

- That the Nature Calls budget should be no more than $480M (excluding inflation) across the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan; and that Council instructs the CE to revisit the BPO shortlisted options and determine if any new industry developments or alternative options could be considered as the Best Practicable Option

1.2 Following that resolution, the following activities have occurred:

- Options from the previous BPO process were revisited (including considering new and emerging technology)

- External independent experts were engaged to carry out a gap analysis on potential options

- Review of the Draft Wastewater Standards from Taumata Arowai (TA) in February 2025

- Review list of potential options against;

o The Project Objectives

o The Draft Wastewater Standards; and

o The project budget of $480M (excluding inflation)

The outcome of this work is provided in the following sections.

2. Description of discharge options

2.1 Further information supporting the Summary of Options table above can be found in; Attachment A (Nature Calls Workshop 30 April slides, updated with the Programme Milestones from this paper) and Attachment B (Description of Potential Discharge Options against budget, objectives and Draft Wastewater Standards), which provide detail of each of the individual options considered.

Overview of Discharge Options

2.2 The discharge options presented above and in the accompanying attachments fall into three categories –

- Discharge to the Manawatū River (Options A, B1 (via an optional wetland / land passage discharge) and C.

- Hybrid discharge to the Manawatū River, and to land OR incorporating an Adaptive Management approach (Options B2, D, E, G, H and I).

- Discharge to ocean (Option F).

2.3 The options considered include varying combinations of each, except the ocean discharge. An overview of key considerations of these options is provided below.

Discharge to River

2.4 Discharge to the Manawatū River is considered at three locations, including;

- Discharge via existing location and structure at Totara Road

- Discharge at new location and structure at Longburn (as per the previously submitted consent application); and

- Discharge at a new location and structure at Ōpiki.

Relevance of River Discharge Location to the application of the Draft Standards

2.5 The discharge to river location is integral to how the Draft Standards are applied.

2.6 At the Totara Road and Longburn discharge sites, the river is considered hard-bottomed. The standards require a site-specific risk assessment to consider the effects of the discharge on periphyton and algae growth. The Manawatū River is sensitive to periphyton growth. This was a key environmental effect considered in the previously lodged consent application, despite the proposed very high treatment of the wastewater and disposal to land discharge during low river flows (when the river is at its most sensitive to periphyton growth).

2.7 The river bottom downstream of Ōpiki is considered sandy bottomed. The growth of periphyton is not considered to be a risk in this environment and the Draft Standards require Council to follow the wastewater treatment levels for the relevant dilution ratio. As discussed previously, the existing wastewater treatment plant does not meet the proposed treatment standards for low or moderate dilution requirements. In order to achieve these treatment standards, a new high-rate nutrient removal secondary treatment process will be required (such as a MBR / Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) plant).

Discharge to Land

2.8 Dual discharge options (Hybrid) to the river and land are considered in Options D, E, G, H and I.

2.9 The Draft Standards require a risk based approach to land discharge. They do not provide any guidance on how to consider dual discharges such as land and water.

2.10 The standards require specific land areas to be identified for the risk-based approach to be applied. The previously lodged consent application sought a global consent, which allowed Council to obtain consent for land discharge within the ‘Area of Interest’. In order for land discharge option to be considered, specific sites will need to be identified to allow for the risk based approach to be applied (noting that this was not provided in detail with the draft standards and would not be potentially fully understood until the final standards are released in August 2025).

Discharge to Ocean

2.11 The discharge to ocean option has been included in the list for Elected Members to consider. It is important to note however, that this option was removed from the previous BPO options due to strong opposition from iwi/hapu and it was unsupported by Council on cultural grounds. Iwi have once again expressed their position of no support for this option in our technical working group meetings. However, it meets the new draft standards, so has been included in this paper for transparency.

3. Analysis of options

3.1 To assist Elected Members consider to which options should be removed for any further consideration at this stage of the process, the project team have considered the list of options that have been compiled in accordance with the LTP resolution against the Project Objectives, LTP budget and the Draft Wastewater Standards.

Nature Calls Project Objectives

3.2 The Nature Calls Project Objectives are:

A best practicable option that is developed in partnership with Rangitāne o Manawatū which:

1. Protects public health and minimises public health risks.

2. Minimises adverse environmental effects on air, land and water;

3. Is sustainable, enduring, and resilient;

4. Contributes to improving the health and mauri of the Manawatū River;

5. Takes an integrated approach to the management of the Manawatū River Catchment including understanding cumulative effects (not assessed as cumulative effects on entire catchment depends on actions undertaken by others);

6. Enhances peoples use and enjoyment of the Manawatū River

7. Is affordable and cost effective;

8. Minimises whole of life carbon emissions and optimises resource recovery;

9. Is innovative while being evidence based;

10. Facilitates long term growth and economic development;

11. Is developed with the active engagement of the community and key stakeholders (not assessed at this stage given engagement will occur later)

3.3 The summary of options (above) and Attachment A and B detail the alignment of the options against the project objectives.

3.4 It is important to note that iwi input has not been included in the assessment of Objective 4 (Contributes to improving the health and mauri of the Manawatū River).

Nature Calls Project Budget

3.5 A high-level capital cost estimate has been prepared for each option using base cost components from previously developed estimates. Cost assumptions, are included in Attachment A and B and the summary table above.

3.6 No options have been removed that exceed the LTP budget of $480M (excluding inflation); all cost estimates and ranges are included above and in Attachment A and B.

3.7 The high-level cost estimates provided were developed using base components from previous (2024) estimates and are intended for comparative purposes only at this stage. These costs should not be considered definitive due to the preliminary nature of the project scope.

3.8 As the options are not yet well defined, there is a higher risk of unknown costs and changes, which will evolve with further technical development. The project team will continue to refine and firm up the estimates for any options Council decide to continue working on, incorporating confirmed assumptions during the technical development phase

3.9 The cost figures presented are based on 2024 rates without inflation adjustments and include contingencies aligned with assessed uncertainties. Contingency allowances have been applied more heavily in areas of greater uncertainty to reflect potential risks. The percentage contingency allowances for different elements are set out in Attachment B. Exclusions, such as detailed estimates of whole-of-life operational costs, have not been factored into these initial estimates but will be addressed during detailed technical development.

3.10 However, at a very high level, operational costs estimates range from approximately $7M per year for an upgraded WWTP discharging to Manawatū River at Totara Rd only, to approximately $8.5M for an upgraded plant discharging to river at Totara Rd plus conveyance and discharge to land.

3.11 Current estimates are at the P50 level, meaning there is an equal probability that 50% of cost outcomes will be lower and 50% higher. For large infrastructure projects requiring greater financial confidence, P95 figures—accounting for additional risk allowances—may be more appropriate and will involve adjustments to the presented numbers.

Draft Wastewater Standards

3.12 The project team presented the Draft Wastewater Standards at the Council Workshop on the 12 March 2025 and the Nature Calls Quarterly Update to the Sustainability Committee (16 April 2025), included a summary of Council’s submission to TA on the standards.

3.13 The discharge options have been assessed against the standards for compliance. The outcome of this assessment is included above and in Attachments A and B.

3.14 In some cases, compliance is difficult to ascertain due to limited information released in the draft standards (i.e. risk-based assessments for periphyton and land-based discharge).

Summary

3.15 Table 1 below provides a traffic light summary of the options against the $480M (excluding inflation) project budget, the draft standards and the project objectives.

Table 1: Discharge Options against Cost, Draft Standards and Project Objectives

4. iwi engagement

4.1 As presented in the Sustainability Committee update (16 April 2025), regular meetings continue with representatives from Rangitāne, Te Tūmatakahuki and Ngāti Whakatere.

4.2 The project team met with Te Tūmatakahuki and Ngāti Whakatere representatives on the 22 April 2025 to present the summary of the options against the project budget, draft standards and project objectives. The Rangitāne representative was unable to attend and will be briefed on this information as soon as possible.

4.3 Feedback on the options and the analysis presented was requested from each of the iwi/hapū groups. Representatives in attendance indicated strong objection to the Ocean Discharge option (Option F).

4.4 The project team will continue to engage with representatives from these groups through the development of the BPO.

5. stakeholder engagement

5.1 The project team will continue to brief stakeholders through the Nature Calls Steering Group which meets every two months.

6. programme

6.1 The project team have prepared a programme that de-risks the potential for waste and rework by aligning a more in-depth technical review of remaining options on the long list with the announcement of the new environmental wastewater discharge standards.

6.2 At this stage, the standards are expected to be released mid to late August 2025.

6.3 This timeline will, however, will mean that the shortlisting, public consultation and final BPO decision cannot happen within this term of Council. The project team have outlined key risks identified with this programme in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Programme Milestones and Risks

This programme carries two key risks that are outlined in Table 2 below –

Table 2: Risks Associated with BPO Option Selection Programme

Risk	Risk to Programme	Description
1	High	Delays in the release of standards due to extensive public feedback may prevent the project from meeting critical follow-on deadlines, impacting overall delivery timelines.
2	Medium	The project may face delays or reduced quality in the analysis required for BPO selection if more than 4 options are shortlisted, due to overextension of technical resources.

6.4 Significant changes to the final standards may result in options that no longer meets the draft standards, therefore reducing the choices to take forward into a short list.

7. conclusion

7.1 Discharge Options A – I have been presented to Elected Members in this report. Many of the options have previously been considered, some are variations of existing options. All have been measured against three simple criteria - budget threshold; compliance with the draft wastewater standards, and alignment with the original project objectives.

7.2 It is anticipated that Elected Members will select several options to remove from the long list for further consideration. The rationale for this decision will be recorded to ensure a robust process is followed. Work on a no regrets basis will then continue on the remaining long list options between now and the release of the final standards.

8. next steps

8.1 Following Elected Members determining which discharge options to remove from the current long list, the project team will commence further technical development on the remaining long list options on a no regrets basis to be able to provide further detail the options to support the short-listing decision in December 2025.

8.2 The project team will present regular updates to Council via the established Quarterly reports.

8.3 Engagement with Iwi partners and stakeholder groups will continue as we work towards the release of the standards and the development of any next stages of the project.

9. 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 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 13. Mahere wai 13. Water Plan The objective is: Lodge resource consent application for future discharge of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Lodging for resource consent allows Council to continue to provide its wastewater services and allows for future proofing of the City.

Attachments

1.	Attachment A: Nature Calls EM Workshop slides 30th April, updated with the Programme Milestones from this paper ⇩
2.	Attachment B: Description of potential discharge options against budget, objectives and draft wastewater standards ⇩

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2025

TITLE: Draft Health Promotion Policy - Deliberations

PRESENTED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

APPROVED BY: Waid Crockett, Chief Executive

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO COUNCIL

1. That Council adopt Te Kaupapahere mō te Whakatairanga Hauora (ngā inu hauora, te auahi kore me te momirehu kore, me te haumaru hihirā) – Health Promotion Policy (Healthy beverages, Smoke-free and Vape-free, and Sun Protection) [Attachment 2] and rescind the Sun Protection Policy 2010; Healthy Beverage Policy 2017; and Auahi Kore Smoke-free and Vape-free Policy 2020.

Having considered the matters in s.82 of the Local Government Act 2002 [LGA], Council makes amendments to the Te Kaupapahere mō te Whakatairanga Hauora (ngā inu hauora, te auahi kore me te momirehu kore, me te haumaru hihirā) – Health Promotion Policy (Healthy beverages, Smoke-free and Vape-free, and Sun Protection) and determines that either:

a) further consultation is not warranted, by determining that the nature and significance of those amendments does not warrant further consultation, and rescind the Sun Protection Policy 2010; Healthy Beverage Policy 2017; and Auahi Kore Smoke-free and Vape-free Policy 2020

b) further targeted consultation should be undertaken on the amendments.

Summary of options analysis for the Draft Health Promotion Policy

Problem or Opportunity	Consultation has been completed on the draft Health Promotion Policy (Healthy Beverages, Smoke-free and Vape-free, and Sun Protection) 2024 [the Policy]. The Community Committee heard submissions at its 4 December 2024 meeting. The Council is now in a position to consider all submissions received, deliberate, and make a decision on the next steps.
OPTION 1:	Adopt the Policy, and rescind the current health-related policies
Community Views	Community views have been sought. The response to consultation on the proposal of the Council was mixed. Option 1 would progress the policy process in favour of those who support the proposal.
Benefits	The proposed Policy will consolidate the Council’s three health promotion policies into one. This will clearly describe the position of the Council to support the health and wellbeing of the community, by encouraging behaviour change in settings where the Council has influence or control. Option 1 progresses the review of the Policy in line with the process described in the policy framework [Attachment 3].
Risks	There is some dissatisfaction with the draft Policy, noted in the submissions and feedback received by the Council in response to its proposal. Recommending the draft Policy be adopted by the Council does not address the concerns of those submitters.
Financial	There is a small budget [$5,000] attached to smoke-free vape-free promotion.
OPTION 2:	Not adopt the Health Promotion Policy at this time, and provide instruction to the Chief Executive on preferred next steps. The current health-related policies remain effective until a further decision of the Council is made.
Community Views	Community views have been sought. The response to consultation on the proposal of the Council was mixed. Some respondents to the Council’s proposal did not support the proposal either in-part or in its entirety. Option 2 might support the views of these respondents.
Benefits	Some respondents to the consultation did not support the proposal of the Council. Option 2 might support their submissions. Unless rescinded, the current policies will continue.
Risks	The Sun Protection Policy has not been reviewed since it was adopted in 2010. Similarly, the Healthy Beverages Policy has not been reviewed since 2017. The Auahi Kore Smoke-free and Vape-free Policy, last reviewed in 2020, is also due for review. Progressing Option 2 means an opportunity will be delayed or lost to improve the current policies and bring them up-to-date and in-line with the current strategic direction of the Council.
Financial	There is a small budget [$5,000] attached to smoke-free and vape-free promotion.
OPTION 3:	Having considered the matters in s.82 of the Local Government Act 2002 [LGA], Council makes amendments to the Policy and determines that either: further consultation is not warranted and rescinds the current health-related policies / or further targeted consultation should be undertaken on the amendments].
Community Views	Community views have been sought. The response to consultation on the proposal of the Council was mixed.
Benefits	The benefits of this option are that the Council can respond directly to feedback given in submissions as part of this process. Option 3 progresses the review of the Policy in line with the process described in the policy framework [Attachment 3].
Risks	There is a risk to the decision-making process if the Council does not demonstrate proper consideration of its consultation obligations under s.82 of the LGA when making amendments.
Financial	There is a small budget [$5,000] attached to smoke-free and vape-free promotion.
OPTION 4:	Not adopt the Health Promotion Policy, and retain the three current health-related policies [status quo]
Community Views	Community views have been sought. The response to consultation on the proposal of the Council was mixed.
Benefits	The position of the Council proposed in the Health Promotion Policy is a continuation and confirmation of the position already stated in current policy. Not adopting the Health Promotion Policy and retaining the three current health related policies means that, in practice, very little will change, and the Council will continue to deliver aspects of health promotion to the community.
Risks	Some Policy improvements may be lost, for example a clearer definition of “Council events” will not be made to improve operational practice, or updates to align with the current strategic direction.
Financial	There is a small budget [$5,000] attached to smoke-free and vape-free promotion.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Palmerston North City Council [the Council] has consulted on its draft Health Promotion Policy [the Policy]. The Council should now consider all submissions which have been received and heard, and then deliberate. This report provides detailed analysis on submission comments to assist with those deliberations.

1.2 Consultation returned a mixed response to the proposal. Most submitters supported the intent of the proposal, in particular:

· Merging the policies together.

· The purpose and objectives of the policy – to encourage long-term behaviour change and a healthy community.

· Educative and informative health resources should be available to contribute to maintaining a healthy community.

1.3 Submitters who did not support the proposal [all or in part] cited:

· The Council is overstepping its remit.

· The Policy would unfairly diminish a person’s ability to make their own decisions or choices for their families.

· The Policy encourages unnecessary spending of ratepayer money.

1.4 This report concludes that the Council should adopt Te Kaupapahere mō te Whakatairanga Hauora( ngā inu hauora, te auahi kore me te momirehu kore, me te haumaru hihirā) – draft Health Promotion Policy (Healthy beverages, Smoke-free and Vape-free, and Sun Protection), which is Attachment 2.

1.5 Analysis and advice, as well as suggested amendments to the proposal, is provided in Attachment 1 to this report, and should be considered alongside each original submission.

2. Background and previous council decisions

Purpose of the Policy

2.1 As of 2024, the Sun Protection Policy, Healthy Beverages Policy, and Auahi Kore Smoke-free and Vape-free Outdoor Areas Policy, were due for review.

2.2 All three policies promote the health of the community by encouraging behaviour change in settings where the Council has influence or control, such as in Council-controlled public spaces, facilities, and events. The policies contribute to improving health issues that are prevalent within the community, including:

· Premature and preventable death and morbidity from tobacco smoking [smoke-free and vape-free]

· Melanoma and skin cancers caused by sun exposure [sun protection]

· Diabetes, unwanted weight gain, and tooth decay in children, from a high sugar diet [healthy beverages]

2.3 Because of the similarities in purpose, objectives, outcomes, and guidelines, staff proposed combining the Council’s three health promotion-related policies into one policy.

2.4 Each proposed element of the Policy contributes towards various Council’s objectives and actions, and especially those in the Community Safety and Health Plan to:

· Promote community health

· Promote our Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree city

· Provide sun protection at events and public spaces

· Work with public health partners to promote community health initiatives and programmes

Smoke-free and vape-free

2.5 The draft Policy encourages residents and visitors to Palmerston North to be smoke-free and vape-free in public spaces by taking an educative and non-punitive approach to raising awareness about the harm of smoking and vaping. Signage is the main mechanism used to raise awareness of the smoke-free and vape-free environment.

Sun Protection

2.6 The draft Policy contributes to a reduction in the incidence of skin cancer by improving shade and other sun protection measures throughout the city by leveraging Council’s function as a consent authority and provider of parks, recreational facilities, and events.

Healthy beverages

2.7 The draft Policy encourages healthy beverage choices to contribute to improved health and model good health behaviours for the wider community by restricting the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs] in some Council controlled facilities and events. The Policy promotes alternatives to SSBs such as water, 100% fruit juice, unsweetened milk, artificially sweetened carbonated drinks and zero sugar carbonated drinks.

Elected member workshop

2.8 In March 2024, a workshop with elected members was held to seek feedback on Council’s three health promotion policies. Different views were shared on striking the right balance between leveraging Council’s own influence to achieve its health objectives for the community, and its mandate to do so. At that workshop, there was general support for combining the policies in to one.

Decision of the Committee to consult

2.9 At its meeting on 28 August 2024, the Community Committee approved consultation on the draft Health Promotion Policy (Healthy Beverages, Smoke-free and Vape-free, and Sun Protection) 2024. The approved proposal included:

· having one combined health promotion policy

· requiring smokefree and vapefree signs to be in te reo Māori and English

· requiring sunblock stations to be available at Council-delivered community events scheduled between September to April (daylight saving months)

· an update to the structure of the policy including the strategic content, purpose, objectives, and principles

· expanding the mandate of the current smokefree and vapefree reference group to become the health promotion reference group

· adding a requirement to raise public awareness of the policy

· adding a requirement to advocate to the government on matters to achieve the objectives of the policy

Consultation and hearing of submissions

2.10 The Council consulted with the community in October – November 2024, receiving 56 submissions to its proposal. The Community Committee heard five submitters speak to their submissions at its 4 December 2024 meeting. A summary of all submissions received was provided to the Committee and is included in that meeting agenda.

Post-consultation

2.11 Further community interest in the draft Policy was noted in January 2025, after consultation had closed, specifically related to healthy beverages and the Council not selling sugar sweetened beverages at its venues or events.

2.12 Under the existing Healthy Beverage Policy 2017, sugar sweetened beverages [SSBs], or “sugary drinks”, are not sold at our libraries and community centres. Our existing policy also encourages contractors selling SSBs at Council facilities - including our offices, the Conference and Function Centre, Central Energy Trust Arena [CETA], and the Lido Aquatic Centre - to voluntarily refrain from selling them until their next contract negotiation. All of these facilities, except for the Lido, have already implemented this direction and are not selling SSBs. CETA, the largest venue in the city, has not sold SSBs since January of 2020, when the catering contract was negotiated in line with the policy in place at that time.

2.13 The draft Policy is therefore a continuation of the current policy position of the Council on healthy beverages, rather than the introduction of new policy or provision. It is further expected that as existing commercial catering contracts at Council venues and facilities come up for renewal, they will also be negotiated in line with the Policy, and SSBs will no longer be sold.

2.14 Because the Policy only affects the sale of these drinks at Council facilities and events, people can still bring their own sugary drinks for personal consumption, as long as they comply with other rules and limits described by individual venues.

2.15 NOTE: the policy does not apply to age restricted alcoholic beverages such as beer, wine, and RTDs.

3. Description of options

3.1 The Council now has the following options:

3.2 Option 1: adopt the Health Promotion Policy, and rescind the current health-related policies

3.3 This is the Option the Council should choose to adopt the Health Promotion Policy with minor amendments, as attached.

3.4 Option 2: not adopt the Health Promotion Policy at this time, and provide instruction to the Chief Executive on preferred next steps. The current health-related policies remain effective until a further decision of the Council is made

3.5 This is the Option the Council should choose to pause the policy development process, and receive further advice or information from staff on how to achieve the Council’s preferred policy position.

3.6 Option 3: Having considered the matters in s.82 of the Local Government Act 2002 [LGA], Council makes amendments to the Policy and determines that [either: further consultation is not warranted, and rescinds the current health-related policies / or further targeted consultation should be undertaken on the amendments]

3.7 This is the Option the Council should choose to continue with its proposal to have a Health Promotion Policy, and make amendments to that proposal with or without a consultation process.

3.8 Option 4: not adopt the Health Promotion Policy, and retain the three current health-related policies [status quo]

3.9 This is the Option the Council should choose to stop the policy development process, and retain its three current health-related policies.

Decision-making obligations of the Council

3.10 Section 82 of the LGA describes the Principles of consultation which apply to Council process and decision-making. The principles in s. 82 (1) (a-f) are met by the Council when it engages or consults with the community, by: preparing a proposal, inviting views on that proposal, and with an open mind considering those views before making a decision. S.82(4)(a), (b), and (c) further oblige the Council to have regard to:

· S.82(4)(a) the requirements of s.78 (Community views in relation to decisions)

· S.82(4)(b) the extent to which the current views and preferences of persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter are known to the local authority; and

· S.82(4)(c) the nature and significance of the decision or matter, including its likely impact from the perspective of the persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter.

3.11 For each Option, the Council should have careful regard of the obligations established in s.82 when it deliberates and makes a decision on the draft Health Promotion Policy.

3.12 An analysis of the Options is included in section 4 of this report [below]

4. analysis of options

Option 1: adopt the Health Promotion Policy, and rescind the current health-related policies

4.1 The Council has completed consultation on the draft Policy.

4.2 The Council received a mixed response to its proposal, though most were in favour of the Policy either wholly or in part. The main proposals made by the Council, which are all recommended for adoption, are:

· To have one combined Health Promotion Policy, as it will provide a neat package that describes all elements of Council’s approach to health promotion, and will streamline oversight and review of the Policy

· To amend and clarify the definition of events by using terms that are familiar to operational staff, to make the Policy simpler to interpret and consistent in its application

· To have smoke-free and vape-free signs in te reo Maori, to reflect current practice

· To require sunblock stations be available at Council-delivered community events between September and April [daylight savings months], which along with the change to the definition of events, will provide greater clarity for staff to resource this requirement

· To update and extend the list of Council facilities where SSBs are not sold, to reflect current practice and policy

· To include a requirement for free drinking water and the installation of drinking fountains in suitable public spaces, as well as the provision of free, accessible, and safe drinking water in Council facilities. This will reflect current practice and operational programmes

· To extend the scope of the Health Promotion Reference Group to include healthy beverages and sun protection, in addition to its current remit of smoke-free and vape-free, to leverage the knowledge and resources of the Groups’ contributing members

· To add a requirement to raise public awareness of the Policy, to bring consistency and awareness to the areas of focus for the Council regarding health and healthy communities

4.3 Attachment 1 includes advice in response to submissions made. Minor changes to the original proposal are being advised, none of which change the scope, application, or intent of the Policy:

4.4 Clause 4. Ngā Whāinga – Objectives

· Add the words “[as defined]” to the third bullet point under the Healthy beverages heading so that it reads:

“Fewer people buy and consume sugar sweetened beverages [as defined] at public places and events.”

· Delete footnote 2, as it is repeated language:

Sugar Sweetened Beverage is any beverage that has had calorific sweetener, usually sugar, added prior to sale. The Main categories of sugary drinks include but are not limited to carbonated soft drinks/fizzy drinks, sachet mixes, fruit drinks, cordials, flavoured milks, cold teas/coffees, and energy/sports drinks.

4.5 The change to Clause 4 is administrative and is to improve the interpretation and readability of the Policy.

4.6 Clause 7. Ngā Aratohu - Guidelines

· Add the words “non-calorific” to the third bullet point under 7.i) Healthy beverages heading, related to the types of beverages which are recommended instead of SSBs, so that it reads:

“Artificially / non-calorific sweetened drinks”

4.7 The change to Clause 7.i) aligns with the definition of SSBs used in the Policy. The definition of SSB used in the Policy is: “Sugar Sweetened Beverage (SSBs) is any beverage that has had calorific sweetener, usually sugar, added prior to sale. The main categories of sugary drinks include, but are not limited to, carbonated soft drinks/fizzy drinks, sachet mixes, fruit drinks, cordials, flavoured milks, cold teas/coffees, and energy/sports drinks.”

· Add the words “groups and” to the third bullet point under 7.u) Promotion and education heading so that it reads

“Community groups and organisations”

4.8 The change to clause 7.u) is made to be more inclusive of the different types of community groups and organisations in Palmerston North.

4.9 The Council has a long commitment to promoting and communicating its health-related goals through various policies. There is a risk therefore that not adopting the Policy will mean that the Council misses an opportunity to contribute to meeting its own health-related goals, and those of its partners.

Legal and other Risk

4.10 Option 1 has the lowest risk of the four Options. Option 1 makes minor changes to what was originally proposed by the Council, it continues current Council policy, and generally supports the overall feedback received through submissions. Option 1 does not support the views of those who opposed the proposal of the Council, entirely or in part.

4.11 There are noted benefits in proceeding with Option 1; Option 1 (or Option 3) is recommended.

Option 2: not adopt the Health Promotion Policy, and provide instruction to the Chief Executive on preferred next steps. The current health-related policies remain effective

4.12 Option 2 means that the Council pauses the policy development process to receive further advice from staff on how to achieve the Council’s preferred policy position.

4.13 This is the option the Council should choose if:

· It would like to be provided with additional information or analysis from staff before making a decision;

· It is not yet ready to determine specific amendments or whether consultation is required under Option 3; or

· Having deliberated, it wishes to fundamentally reconsider the proposal, including potentially not proceeding with any health promotion policy.

4.14 Under Option 2, the Council would not make any immediate decisions about amendments. Instead, it would direct staff to provide further advice or undertake additional work before returning the matter to Council for decision.

4.15 Many submitters did not support the draft Policy. These submitters pointed to specific aspects of the proposal - mostly the ongoing position to not sell sugary drinks at Council venues and events, and to provide sunblock at Council events free of charge - as areas of dissatisfaction. Few of these submitters stated that they disagreed with the overall intent and objectives of the Policy.

4.16 Option 2 delays decision-making, which may frustrate all submitters regardless of their position. Unlike Option 3, which allows for immediate amendments as a pathway forward, Option 2 defers any substantive decisions pending further staff work

4.17 The Council should also note Option 2 is unlikely to directly address the concerns of the submitters who do not support the Policy unless further instruction to rescind Council’s substantive health related policies is also given.

4.18 During any delay under Option 2, the existing policies remain in force. This means the current restrictions on sugary drinks and requirements for sun protection continue to apply until Council makes a future decision

Legal and other Risk

4.19 Option 2 has some risks, primarily to the expectations of submitters and stakeholders, from possible delays caused by additional work to inform deliberations. This Policy is not a legal requirement for the Council, so the risk posed by a delay in this process is primarily reputational rather than legal i.e.: the Council is not on a prescribed timeframe for this Policy.

4.20 The benefits of Option 2 do not outweigh those of Option 1 or Option 3. Option 2 is not recommended.

Option 3: Having considered the matters in s.82 of the Local Government Act 2002 [LGA], Council makes amendments to the Policy and determines that [either: further consultation is not warranted, and rescinds the current health-related policies / or further targeted consultation should be undertaken on the amendments].

4.21 Option 3 means the Council continues with its proposal to have a Health Promotion Policy, while making amendments to that proposal following consultation. The Council would need to explicitly consider whether further consultation is necessary, having regard to the matters in s.82 of the LGA.

4.22 When considering the need for further consultation under s.82, the Council should have regard to:

· The nature and significance of the decision or matter (s.82(4)(c)).

· The views and preferences of persons who will or may be affected by the decision, and the extent to which they are known to the Council (s.82(4)(a) and (b)).

· Whether the amendments respond to consultation feedback already received.

· The costs and benefits of undertaking further consultation.

· Whether additional views are likely to be obtained that would substantially differ from those already received.

4.23 Under Option 3 the Council would need to determine, through additional resolutions, its changes, based on the information it currently has. Staff would then prepare a final updated version of the Policy based on those resolutions for approval [or approval under delegation] of the Council. Final approval by Council [or approval under delegation] would be a procedural decision that gives effect to the substantive decision to amend the Policy.

4.24 Option 3 is therefore the option the Council should choose if it wants to make further amendments to the Policy in response to feedback received, with or without further consultation.

4.25 The Council might choose Option 3 without further consultation if (for example), having considered the benefits and risks, it considers that the feedback already received supports its proposed changes, the changes would not have resulted in different responses had they been part of the original proposal, and the changes will meet community needs and expectations.

4.26 The Council might choose Option 3 with targeted consultation if (for example) it considers that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from what was consulted on, affected parties have not had adequate opportunity to comment on the specific changes, or additional feedback would likely assist in making a better decision

4.27 Depending on the changes which are made, Option 3 could progress the views of those who do support, or those who do not support the current proposal, either in part or in the entirety.

4.28 With any change considered through Option 3, the Council should also be aware of how the change would contribute to the strategic direction of the Council more widely.

Example – Sun protection

4.29 An example of a change under Option 3 could be that the Council does not provide free sunblock or sunscreen at its community events between September and April [clause 7.f in the proposal]. Not providing free sunblock or sunscreen at community events would be something which the Council did not consult on as part of its proposal, and which forms part of its current policy.

4.30 The Council might consider a change like this in response to the mixed feedback it received on its proposal to provide free sunblock or sunscreen at Council-run community events.

4.31 In this example, while the Council might consider removing clause 7.f from the Policy, it could continue to provide the other elements of sun protection it has described in its proposal i.e. providing sunshade at events, scheduling events outside of the hours of 11am and 4pm during the high ultra-violet radiation season, planning and implementing tree planting and maintenance programmes for natural shade, and three yearly shade audits.

4.32 The Council would also consider the submissions it received in support of the proposal it made to provide free sunblock or sunscreen at events, and balance the effect of the change with the expectations of those submitters.

Example – Healthy beverages

4.33 Another example of a change under Option 3 could be removing, either entirely or in part, the references to SSBs in the Policy. The Council proposal to continue with its current Policy of not selling SSBs at its venues and events attracted the most dissatisfaction from submitters across all feedback forms, though the overall submission response was slightly in favour.

4.34 For this example, the Council could address the feedback received from submitters who do not support the position of the Council on SSBs in different ways:

· The Council could remove all references to SSBs from the Policy, and proceed to allow the sale of SSBs at its venues and events

· The Council could retain the current position on SSBs, but exclude specific venues from the requirements in the Policy e.g: Central Energy Trust Arena, or the Civic Administration Building

· The Council could retain the current position on SSBs, but exclude specific events from the requirements e.g: major community events like Festival of Cultures

· The Council could change the requirement in the Policy so that instead of not allowing the sale of SSBs at its venue and events, the requirement would be to make available healthy alternatives

4.35 In this example, while the Council may choose to remove the relevant clauses related to SSBs from the Policy, it could continue to provide the other elements of healthy beverages it has described in its proposal i.e.: continuing to make healthy beverage alternatives available to purchase at its venues and events, identifying suitable locations for installing drinking water fountains and implementing this over time, and providing clean and accessible drinking water at Council facilities.

4.36 As with the previous example, the Council would also consider feedback it received in support of not allowing the sale of SSBs at its venues or events, and balance the effect of the change with the expectations of those submitters.

Legal and other Risk

4.37 Option 3 has risks. The primary risk is procedural, being a potential failure to properly consider the need for further consultation under s.82 during deliberations on the changes that it wishes to make. There is also a substantive risk if the Council makes a decision not to consult further that no reasonable council could have made in the circumstances.

4.38 The critical legal requirement is that the Council explicitly considers and exercises its discretion under s.82 regarding the need for further consultation when contemplating amendments to the Policy. In having proper regard to its obligations under s.82, the Council should consider the relevant factors as summarised in paragraph 4.22 above. The resolution should indicate that the Council has considered the s 82 factors and reached a decision on whether further consultation is necessary.

4.39 The legal risk depends on the nature of the amendments being proposed and whether the Council actually considers the matters in s.82 during deliberations. Different amendments may carry different risk profiles, but the key requirement remains that the Council must exercise its discretion by considering whether further consultation is warranted for the specific changes being contemplated.

4.40 Option 3 offers flexibility to make amendments in response to feedback. If amendments are made without further consultation, it provides finality and closure to the policy development process. However, if further consultation is required, this benefit of timely resolution is reduced, potentially delaying the implementation of the policy.

4.41 While Option 3 provides flexibility, it carries higher legal risk than Options 1 or 2 if consultation requirements are not properly addressed.

4.42 There are noted benefits in proceeding with Option 3; Option 3 (or Option 1) is recommended.

Option 4: not adopt the Health Promotion Policy, and retain the three current health-related policies [status quo]

4.43 Option 4 stops the policy development process. This is the Option the Council should choose if it decides, based on feedback and submissions, that it should not adopt the Health Promotion Policy, and instead retain its position stated in its three current health-related policies.

Legal and other Risk

4.44 Option 4 means that there is a lost opportunity to make improvements identified through the policy review and development process. These include:

· administrative updates, and updates to strategic alignment reflecting the current goals and vision of the Council

· implementation improvements, achieved through clarification of definitions and streamlining operational and advocacy processes

· expanding the mandate of the current Smokefree and Vapefree Reference Group

4.45 There is also some risk that Option 4 does not meet the expectations of the community. The proposed Health Promotion Policy sought to combine but generally reflect a status quo position for all three current health-related policies. Option 4 is likely to meet expectations of submitters who provided feedback in favour of the proposal, and is unlikely to address dissatisfaction from submitters who did not support the proposal.

4.46 The benefits of Option 4 do not outweigh those of Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3. Option 4 is not recommended.

Current health related policies

4.47 Each of the Options has a different potential effect on the current health-related policies [Sun Protection, Healthy Beverages, and Auahi Kore Smoke-free and Vape-free], shown below. Depending on the Option chosen, and the course of action pursued by the Council, appropriate resolutions will need to be considered to manage the continuation or rescinding of current policy.

Policy	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4
Health Promotion Policy [proposed]	Adopt policy	Do not adopt policy and provide direction on next steps	Make amendments and adopt an amended policy with or without further consultation.	Do not adopt policy
Sun Protection Policy 2010 [current]	Replaced, rescind	Remains	Replaced, rescind	Remains
Healthy Beverage Policy 2017 [current]	Replaced, rescind	Remains	Replaced, rescind	Remains
Auahi Kore Smoke-free and vape-free policy 2020 [current]	Replaced, rescind	Remains	Replaced, rescind	Remains
Outcome for Council	One Policy	Paused process	One Policy	Three Policies
Risk Assessment	Low	Medium/Low	Medium	Medium/Low
Recommended Option	Yes	No	No	No

5. Conclusion

5.1 The Council has been provided analysis and advice to assist with its deliberations on Te Kaupapahere mō te Whakatairanga Hauora (ngā inu hauora, te auahi kore me te momirehu kore, me te haumaru hihirā) – draft Health Promotion Policy (Healthy beverages, Smoke-free and Vape-free, and Sun Protection).

5.2 If the Policy is adopted (Option 1) or amended and adopted without further consultation (Option 3(a)), the review of the Policy is complete. Unless it is brought forward, the next review will occur in 2028.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Council adopts the Policy (Option 1), or an amended version of the Policy without further consultation (Option 3a)), as recommended, implementation will start.

6.2 Public notices will be placed, copies of the Policy will be available for inspection at Council offices and libraries, and all submitters to the consultation, as well as interested parties, will be directly notified of the outcome of the process.

Health Promotion Reference Group

6.3 The Health Promotion Reference Group will be convened through the implementation of the Policy, in-line with the process established through the policy framework, and the implementation plan of the Policy [which the Senior Leadership Team will approve].

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Council has completed early engagement and formal consultation with the community under sections 82 and 83 of the Local Government Act 2022. Partners and stakeholders, including Te Whatu Ora, the Cancer Society, and Rangitāne o Manawatū through Te Whiri Kōkō, were invited to provide feedback and make a submission on the proposal. The community more widely was also invited to share their feedback during the consultation period [7 October 2024 – 8 November 2024].

7.2 Printed copies of the Statement of Proposal were made available from the Customer Service Centre, as well as at all Council libraries. A consultation page that explained the proposal of Council, contained information about how people could get in touch, and included an online submission form was published to the Council website.

7.3 Consultation information was shared through a social media campaign on the Council’s social media channels, posters, and through Councils reference groups.

8. 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 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 7. Mahere tautāwhi hapori 7. Community Support Plan The objective is: Support for-purpose organisations and communities of interest and deliver programmes to promote community wellbeing. Local communities and communities of interest have the support they need to develop and deliver initiatives to meet their needs. For-purpose organisations have the resources they need to promote community wellbeing. Programmes supporting community wellbeing have Council support and funding. · Take part in interagency initiatives to promote community wellbeing. 9. Mahere haumaru hapori, hauora hapori 9. Community Safety and Health Plan The objective is: Promote community health Community spaces and events are smokefree and sunsmart. Council venues and facilities and events provide for healthy food and beverage choices. Community health issues and solutions are well understood, and communities have access to the information they need. · Promote our Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree city · Provide sun protection at events and public spaces · Work with public health partners to promote community health initiatives and programmes
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The recommendation will contribute to increased sun-protection at events in public spaces, promote smoke-free and vape-free messaging around the city, and prevent unwanted weight gain and tooth decay in children through the consumption of sugary drinks. The recommendation will also widen the mandate of the Council to work with its public health partners to promote community health initiatives and programmes.

Attachments

1.	Deliberations Advice - Health Promotion Policy 2024 ⇩
2.	For Adoption - Health Promotion Policy 2024 ⇩
3.	Policy Framework ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2025

TITLE: Treasury Report - Nine months ending 31 March 2025

Presented By: Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council note the performance of Council’s treasury activity for the nine months ending 31 March 2025.

1. ISSUE

1.1 To provide an update on the Council’s treasury activity for the nine months ending 31 March 2025.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Council’s Long Term Plan 2024-34 forecast additional debt of $53.3m would need to be raised during the 2024/25 year to fund the $62.4m of new capital expenditure programmes (including assumed carry forwards from 2023/24). On 26 June 2024 Council authorised the Chief Executive to borrow up to an additional $54m for its purposes during 2024/25.

2.2 Council’s Financial Strategy (adopted 26 June 2024) contains the following ratios which the Council has determined to be prudent maxima:

· Net debt as a percentage of total assets not exceeding 20%

· Net debt as a percentage of total revenue not exceeding 250%

· Net interest as a percentage of total revenue not exceeding 15%

· Net interest as a percentage of annual rates income not exceeding 20%

2.3 The Treasury Policy (embracing the Liability Management and Investment Policy), an updated version of which was adopted by the Council on 14 February 2024, also contains a number of other criteria regarding debt management.

3. PERFORMANCE

3.1 On 18 March 2025 S&P Global Rating issued revised credit ratings for a large number of NZ Councils following their reassessment of the local government sector in NZ. The change in their assessment was primarily driven by the increasing burden on Councils to fund infrastructure and the volatility of the policy framework for the structure of local government. The Council’s previous rating of AA (negative) was changed to AA- (stable). The effect of this lowered credit rating is that there will be a 0.05% increase in the borrowing margin applied to new long-term borrowings raised by the Council.

3.2 Schedule 1 attached shows the details of Council’s debt as at 31 March 2025. Debt levels were within the policy parameters outlined in section 2 of this report.

3.3 The summarised term debt movements are shown in the following table:

LTP Budget for year #1 (2024/25)

$000

Actual – 3 months (2024/25)

$000

Actual – 6 months (2024/25)

$000

Actual – 9 months (2024/25)

$000

Debt balance at 1 July 2024:

· Core Council debt

· Debt on behalf of PNAL

Plus new debt #2

Less debt repayments #2

256.1

53.3

267.0

8.0

44.0

(10.8)

267.0

8.0

44.0

(10.8)

267.0

8.0

4.2

(10.8)

Closing gross debt balance

Comprising:

Bank advance (on call)

LGFA stock

309.4

308.2

312.4

Less:

Deposits held for debt repayment #3

Sum advanced to PN Airport Ltd

(18.0)

(8.0)

(18.0)

(8.0)

(18.0)

(12.0)

Net Council related term debt

$309.4

$282.2

$282.4

#1 The Council’s LTP does not currently include the debt related to PNAL.

#2 A portion of the Council’s debt is drawn on a daily basis – daily drawdowns and repayments are not included in these figures but the net draw or repayment for the year to date is shown as part of new debt or debt repayment as appropriate.

#3 To ensure there were sufficient funds on hand to meet outgoings in a period of uncertain cashflows a term loan of $15m was raised in mid-August. As at 31 March 2025 $6.3m of this was held on on-call. If this was taken into account, then the net Council related debt was effectively $276.1m as at 31 March.

3.4 Gross debt at 31 March 2025 was $312.4m compared with $275m at 1 July 2024.

3.5 The debt raised in the nine months to 31 March 2025 is explained further in the following table:

	Position as at 1 July 2024 $m	Position as at 31 March 2025 $m	Change YTD $m
Gross debt Less portion relating to PNAL	275.0 (8.0)	312.4 (12.0)	37.4 (4.0)
Gross debt relating to Council Less term deposit held to repay maturing debt	267.0 (6.0)	300.4 (18.0)	33.4 (12.0)
Net Council related debt	261.0	282.4	21.4

This shows net additional term debt of $21.4m was raised during the nine months. This compares with the authorised total sum for the year of $54m mentioned in clause 2.1. $29m was raised on 8 July with $19m of this being to fund debt maturing in April 2025. $18m of this has been placed on term deposit in the meantime. $4.2m was raised on 17 February and $4m on-lent to PNAL.

3.6 A 10-year history of the gross & net debt is shown in the following graph:

3.7 Actual finance costs incurred by the Council depend on the actual debt levels and the interest rate. During the nine months gross finance costs (including interest, line fees and the effects of payments relating to swaps) amounted to $10.21m compared with the budget for the year of $14.52m.

3.8 Deducting interest income from the gross interest expense of $10.21m means a net interest expense (for Council related debt) for the nine months of $8.4m compared with the annual budget of $14.16 m.

3.9 The effective weighted average interest rate for the year to date is 4.4% compared with the budgetary assumption of 5%.

3.10 The Council has entered financial instruments related to its debt portfolio utilising swap trading lines established with Westpac, ANZ and BNZ. The details of these are shown in Schedule 2 attached.

The value of these instruments is measured in terms of its ‘mark-to-market’, i.e. the difference between the value at which the interest rate was fixed and the current market value of the transaction. Each of these transactions was valued at the date they were fixed and again at the reporting date. Financial reporting standards require the movement in values to be recorded through the Council’s Statement of Comprehensive Income (Profit & Loss Account). They have been revalued as at 31 March 2025. The latest valuation is an asset of $2.44m compared with an asset of $9.35m as at 30 June 2024. The reduction in asset value of $6.91m is a consequence of reducing market interest rates.

3.11 The Council’s Treasury Policy contains guidelines regarding the measurement of treasury risk as follows:

· Funding and liquidity risk is managed by the Council maintaining a pre-set portion of its debt in a range of maturity periods, e.g. < 3 years, 3 - 7 years, 7 years +.

· Interest rate risk is managed by the Council maintaining the ratio of debt that is subject to floating versus fixed interest rates within pre-set limits.

3.12 The position compared to the policy is illustrated in the graphs in Schedule 3 attached.

3.13 The funding and liquidity risk position can be summarised as follows:

· Council’s liquid position complies with policy.

· Since 1 July 2024 $48.2m of term debt has been raised and $4.8m of bank debt and $6m of term debt has been repaid.

3.14 The interest rate risk position describes the portion of the overall forecast debt that is fixed versus floating and can be summarised as follows:

· There is significant uncertainty about forecast levels of future debt – this very much depends on a number of factors including future Council decisions on the proposed capital expenditure programme, the future structure for the provision of three waters and the extent of external funding able to be organised from other arrangements.

· Policy compliance at 31 March 2025 is based on the debt forecasts in the adopted Long-term Plan.

3.15 The Treasury Policy also contains requirements in relation to counterparty credit risk – this relates to investments and financial risk management instruments. Three new forward start swap agreements have been entered over the nine-month period:

· on 12 July fixing interest rates for $20m at 3.695% from 2025 to 2030,

· on 22 November fixing interest rates for $15m at 3.725% from 2024 to 2026,

· on 25 March fixing interest rates for $20m at 3.825% from 2025 to 2030.

The position as at 31 March 2025 is shown in Schedule 4 attached.

3.16 Council’s credit lines with the banks include a $18m three-year credit facility with Westpac Bank (maturing 31 October 2025) and a revolving $25m three-year facility with ANZ Bank (maturing 31 March 2028). In March a new revolving 15 month $10m standby line was arranged with LGFA.

4. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

4.1 Gross finance costs for the nine months to 31 March (including interest, line fees and the effect of swaps) was $10.21m compared with budget for the year of $14.52m. The net finance cost (after considering the interest income from term investments and the advance to Palmerston North Airport Ltd) is $8.4m compared with the budget for the year of $14.16m.

4.2 In conjunction with Council’s treasury advisors hedging instruments are regularly reviewed in an effort to ensure the instruments are being utilised to best advantage as market conditions change. The level of hedging cover is also reviewed as the forecasts of future debt levels are revised.

4.3 Council’s borrowing strategy is continually reviewed, in conjunction with Council’s treasury advisors, to ensure best advantage is taken of Council’s quality credit rating.

4.4 A further performance report will be provided after the June 2025 quarter.

5. 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: All of Council’s Goals.
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objectives in: 14. Mahere mana urungi, kirirarautanga hihiri 14. Governance and Active Citizenship Plan The objective is: Oversee Council operations and communicate outcomes and decisions to our communities.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Managing the Council’s treasury activity is a fundamental component of day to day administration of the Council.

Attachments

Schedules 1 - 4 ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2025

TITLE: Te Manawa Museums Trust: Six-Month Report 1 July - 31 December 2024 and Draft Statement of Intent 2025-28

Presented By: Sarah Claridge, Governance Advisor

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive the Six-Month Performance Report 1 July - 31 December 2024 (Attachment 1) submitted by Te Manawa Museums Trust.

2. That Council receive the draft Statement of Intent 2025-28 (Attachment 2) submitted by Te Manawa Museums Trust.

3. That Council agree that the recommended comments on the draft Statement of Intent 2025–28 outlined in Table 4 be advised to Te Manawa Museums Trust.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Te Manawa Museums Trust (Te Manawa) has delivered its six-month report 1 July - 31 December 2024 and draft Statement of Intent (SOI) 2025-28. This report includes analysis of both documents, which are appended to this memorandum.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to provide an opportunity for Council to give feedback to the Te Manawa Board on their draft SOI.

1.3 Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), when preparing the final SOI, a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) must consider any comments made on the draft by the Council, prior to delivering a final SOI by 30 June 2024.

1.4 Due to a new financial system and a change in personnel, Te Manawa did not meet the legal deadline of 1 March to submit these documents.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Te Manawa is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), which was set up to manage the Te Manawa Museum. A CCO is an organisation in which Council has the right to appoint at least 50% of the trustees and must work towards Council’s objectives on its behalf.

2.2 Six-month performance reports allow Council to track a CCO’s progress against their SOI and the Council’s objectives for the CCO. This six-month report covers the first six months of the SOI 2024-2027.

2.3 The Council is required by the LGA to regularly undertake performance monitoring of its CCOs. Council is required to evaluate:

· the contribution of each CCO to the Council’s objectives for the CCO,

· the desired results set out in the SOI; and

· the overall aims and outcomes of the Council based on the six-month reports.

3. COUNCIL OBJECTIVES FOR TE MANAWA 2025-2028

3.1 It is good practice for a shareholder of a CCO (ie. Council) to outline what it expects of its CCO, and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the CCO Board and Council in a Statement of Expectations (SOE).

3.2 In September 2024, Council agreed a three-year Statement of Expectations (SOE) 2025-2028 for Te Manawa. The SOE aligns with the objectives from Council’s Oranga Papaioea City Strategy and strategic plans, in particularly the Arts Plan and the Heritage Plan.

3.3 Council’s priorities under the Arts and Heritage Plans for Te Manawa are below:

For the Arts Plan

Objective 1: Provide and support cultural facilities Te Manawa is a central city museum, art gallery, and science centre for the wider region.

Objective 2: Support community arts initiatives and organisations. The value of the arts is evident in our cityscape. There is support for local arts organisations and creative initiatives.

Objective 3: Provide, fund, and support city and community events There is a variety of local city and community events and festivals throughout the year. Communities have opportunities to share and celebrate their cultural identity and interests. New and developing events attract and engage new audiences.

For the Heritage Plan:

Objective 1: Promote, protect, celebrate, and share knowledge of local history City communities have opportunities to see and learn about the various threads of Palmerston North’s history. This includes the history of Rangitāne o Manawatū, and social history including for example the development of the cityscape, military, education, sport, medical and railway heritage, and the stories of the many and diverse communities who live here.

Objective 2: Support Rangitāne o Manawatū in their role as kaitiaki of their historic heritage places. Rangitāne o Manawatū identifies projects and initiatives of greatest priority. Council works with Rangitāne o Manawatū in support of shared and agreed outcomes to promote community wellbeing.

3.4 Te Manawa has incorporated these objectives into their key performance indicators which are grouped as:

· Innovative experiences that engage visitors;

· Enhanced Learning and Development; and

· A collaborative and future focused organisation.

4. PERFORMANCE FOR THE SIX MONTHS July TO DECEMBER 2024

4.1 In February 2024, Council agreed to increase Te Manawa’s grant to $4M for the 2024-25 year. The additional grant was to upgrade and replace Te Manawa’s semi-permanent offerings. This involves new content, furniture, exhibits and interactions. In this reporting period, work to upgrade the semi-permanent offer included:

· The new display, Call Me Maybe in the Journeys Gallery. The exhibit features a selection of phones, spanning the decades from the 1880s to the present. It focuses on how communication has evolved with time and technology for the people of the Manawatū.

· The purchase of three tall cases for the Te Rangi Whenua gallery, these display kākahu and other traditional cloaks from Te Manawa’s collection. The cloaks offer visitors a unique opportunity to connect with and appreciate the heritage, culture, and artistry involved.

4.2 Highlights from Te Manawa’s Six-Month Report (Attachment 1) include the following:

· Hosted several Toi Māori exhibitions included Te Whare Pora: A Sacred Space by Maungarongo (Ron) Te Kawa, Tohunga Mahi Toi by Robyn Kahukiwa and Matatau.

· Collaborated with tertiary partners to exhibit Toioho ki Āpiti, Matatau with Massey University (November), and Nova Arte: Bachelor of Creative Media Expo, (UCOL).

· Collaborated with New Zealand Rugby Museum, Property Brokers, Sport Manawatū and the Manawatū Business Chamber on the Peter Bush Fundraising Auction in August.

· Learning programmes have been very popular, Te Manawa exceeded its 2024 target set by the Ministry of Education for Enriching Learning Curriculum (ELC) funding with 4107 students attending during the 2024 calendar year. 44 free education programmes to school groups (1475 students) were also run.

· The interactive touring exhibition, Sunlight – Iho Kōmaru, was very popular with visitors.

4.3 Table 1 shows Te Manawa’s six-month performance against its annual target. Te Manawa is tracking well against all its performance measures and has already achieved the online engagement target.

4.4 Whilst officers acknowledge that the Trust does not want to set targets that are impossible to achieve, having targets that are too easy to achieve diminishes the usefulness of having performance measures. Perhaps the Board should consider more ambitious targets for next year or review the depth of engagement.

4.5 Table 2 compares Te Manawa’s results for the last 3 years.

Table 2: Comparing the first six months of the financial years 2022, 2023 and 2024

Measure

YTD

31 Dec 2022

YTD

31 Dec

2023

YTD

31 Dec

2024

3 Year Trend

Visits to Te Manawa

Actual

Target*

69,303

65,000

84,401

65,000

80,860

65,500

→

External revenue ($)

Actual

Target*

197,940

473,590

290,037

255,125

$397,619

$334,100

↑

Visitor satisfaction

(TM surveys)

Actual

Target

98%

95%

98%

95%

98%

95%

→

*Target is for the six-month mark

4.6 ‘Visits to Te Manawa’ is slightly down on last year but is still higher than 2022.

4.7 It is pleasing to see the external revenue figure increase by $100,000 compared to 2023, and to hear about progress in this area, particularly the work to identify potential sponsors and implement the Revenue Strategy.

Financial Analysis for the six-month period

4.8 Te Manawa has recently implemented a new accounting system, which has been used to create the financial statements for both the six month and draft SOI. Collating the financial data into the new system has been a challenging process and has led to significant delays.

4.9 The Trust reported a deficit of $1,435 as opposed to a budgeted surplus of $109K, an unfavourable variation of $112k. This is because of staffing changes ($137k) and three pay periods falling in December.

Table 3: Summary of Financial Information for Six-Month Report

	July - December 2024			July - December 2023
	Actual	Budget	Variance	Actual	Variance*
Financial Performance
PNCC Grants	1,916,799	1,916,799	0	1,878,285	38,514
Total Revenue	2,258,264	2,349,088	(90,824)	2,137,024	121,240
Total Expenses	2,257,721	2,215,846	41,875	1,841,556	416,165
Other Expenses	1,978	22,972	(20,994)	26,295	(24,317)
Net Surplus (Deficit)	(1,435)	109,470	(111,705)	277,357	(270,608)
Financial Position
Current Assets	231,101	333,301	(102,200)	476,364	(245,263)
Total Assets	21,994,342	22,412,266	(417,924)	22,216,731	(222,389)
Current Liabilities	635,756	894,604	(258,848)	843,742	(207,986)
Total Liabilities	635,756	894,604	(258,848)	843,742	(207,986)
Net Assets	21,358,587	21,517,662	(159,075)	21,372,990	(14,403)
Equity	21,358,587	21,517,662	(159,075)	21,373,990	(15,403)
Cash Flows
Total Net Cash Flows	(1,423)	(111,596)	110,173	750,822	(752,245)
Opening Cash	419,203	443,807	(24,604)	265,459	153,744
Closing Cash	417,780	332,211	85,569	1,016,281	(598,501)

*when compared to the same period 12 months ago

5. draft statement of intent 2024-2027

5.1 The Board has presented a draft SOI (Attachment 1) that aligns with Council’s strategic direction and addresses the Statement of Expectations, as outlined in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Comparison of Te Manawa’s SOI with Council’s Statement of Expectation

Objectives from Council’s Statement of Expectation	Te Manawa’s Draft SOI 2025-28	Comments + Recommendations for Final SOI 2025-28
Contribute towards specific actions in the Arts Plan and the Heritage Plan and align activities to Council’s overall vision, goals, and Oranga Papaioea City Strategy.	Partially Included: Te Manawa’s contribution to Council’s strategic goals are detailed on page 9.	No mention to the specific objectives in the Arts and Heritage Plans (section 3.3 above). Recommendation That Te Manawa detail how it meets these specific objectives.
Focus on developing and growing use of and access to collections.	Included: Outlined in Objective 1 actions include: · Working with Rangitāne to weave Te Ao Māori into the Science Centre development. · Develop and deliver one experience that engages visitors with the Peter Bush Collection · Continue to promote and add to Collections online	Satisfies Statement of Expectation.
Focus on attracting visitation and third-party investment.	Included: as part of the foreword on page 3. Objective 1 explains how Te Manawa aims to attract visitors using creative marketing and digital engagement. A range of actions to attract different communities to the museum are listed under Objective 1. Actions include: · Delivering a programme of balanced, exciting, and frequently changing exhibitions; aligning attractions to support Council’s cultural events; and, · Engaging visitors with on-site activities and public programmes based around cultural celebrations. Actions to attract external funding include: · Identify partnership opportunities for ongoing funding and collaboration. · Seeking external revenue to assist in cost of delivering the education programme (Objection 2), and · Implementing the Te Manawa Revenue Strategy with a focus on philanthropic and sponsorship contribution against strategic targets (Objection 3). ‘Visitor Numbers’ and External Revenue are also performance measures.	Satisfies Statement of Expectation.
Develop performance measures that demonstrate performance. To include: increasing patronage numbers	Included: The draft SOI lists 4 performance measures (page 11) External revenue targets are given inclusive and excluding the Science Centre project.	Targets are modest, considering Te Manawa has exceeded the current targets (see Table 1 above). Officers recommend online engagement measurement be scoped to help identify if other strategic objectives such as education and visitor attraction are being met, eg. Specifying traffic to certain web pages such as Explore the collection - Te Manawa, which are being developed to meet those purposes Recommendation 1. That Te Manawa review targets to be more ambitious. 2. That Te Manawa review the measure “Online Engagement”.
Outline approach to good governance practices, financial sustainability, and environmental sustainability.	Included: Good governance practices The Board has listed in its approach to governance (page 10): to ‘encourage and maintain diversity in all elements of its organisation’ An action in Objective 3 is to Work with PNCC to reflect the diversity of Palmerston North in its Board. Financial sustainability practices Mentioned in the foreword, and in objectives in reference to the Revenue strategy and partnership funding efforts. Environmental sustainability Actions are discussed in Objective 3 : these include: · Reduce paper use and · Increasing the use of sustainable products in the development and delivery of exhibitions.	Satisfies Statement of Expectation.
Outline your approach to upholding the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi including working in partnership with Rangitāne o Manawatū (see page 7 of the Oranga Papaioea City Strategy).	Included: Mentioned in the foreword. Several objectives and actions refer to collaborating with Rangitāne and Māori to develop exhibitions and implement strategies. Under How we operate (page 16) Te Manawa states: “We will continue to work closely with Rangitāne, as mana whenua to ensure Rangitānenuiarawa in the telling of pūrākau and the appropriate tikanga in the Kaitiakitanga of taonga”	Satisfies Statement of Expectation.
Outline approach to engaging with and enabling participation by under- represented communities^{^[1]}	Included: Action under Objective 1: Continue to engage with the city’s less-represented communities with the aim in 2026-27 to explore exhibition opportunities with one of these groups.	Specific programmes/ groups have been removed from SOI since the previous year (NOA programme, MIAB, Tamariki exhibition space).
Collaborate with Council on the development of the Civic and Cultural Masterplan and to resolving earthquake prone building issues.	Included: Mentioned as an activity in Objective 3: “Work with PNCC and external funders towards a new purpose-built, energy efficient Te Manawa complex.”	Satisfies Statement of Expectation.
Manage existing collections and any potential donations to ensure every collection item is housed in optimum conditions. Demonstrate how: · the collecting goals of the museum and other collections-related policies take account of collections sustainability, and current and long-term storage requirements; · items acquired for the collection or accepted on long-term loan fall within the acquisitions policy of the museum or gallery and that Te Manawa can provide adequately for their physical protection, care, and documentation.	Partially Included Mentioned as an activity in Objective 3: “Develop a proposal with PNCC to mitigate risks and address challenges that arise with the Art Gallery’s ability to host high-quality contemporary exhibitions and provide museum standard level of care for collections and loaned items.”	The SOI talks about the importance of maintaining collections but does not go into details about how it does so. The SOI mentions that renovations of the Art Gallery need to occur to enable Te Manawa to provide a museum standard level of care. However, this issue does not cover the full extent of Council’s expectation. This may be better covered through a report to Council rather than including detail in the SOI. Recommendation That the SOI include an action to inform Council about the Acquisition Policy, how collections are protected, and any risks to the collection.
Strategic Partnerships strengthening the partnership with the New Zealand Rugby Museum; working with Te Manawa’s founding trusts to address shared objectives; working with the Heritage Reference Group during the establishment phase.	Partially Included: New Zealand Rugby Museum An action in Objection 3 involves continuing to strengthen the relationship through the Peter Bush archive project and other related projects. Founding Societies Te Manawa to collaborate with founding societies to grow support and general revenue. Heritage Reference Group Not mentioned	Recommendation That Te Manawa explain how it plans to work with the Heritage Reference Group.

Objectives from Council’s Statement of Expectation

Te Manawa’s Draft SOI 2025-28

Comments + Recommendations for Final SOI 2025-28

Contribute towards specific actions in the Arts Plan and the Heritage Plan and align activities to Council’s overall vision, goals, and Oranga Papaioea City Strategy.

Partially Included: Te Manawa’s contribution to Council’s strategic goals are detailed on page 9.

No mention to the specific objectives in the Arts and Heritage Plans (section 3.3 above).

Recommendation

That Te Manawa detail how it meets these specific objectives.

Focus on developing and growing use of and access to collections.

Included: Outlined in Objective 1 actions include:

· Working with Rangitāne to weave Te Ao Māori into the Science Centre development.

· Develop and deliver one experience that engages visitors with the Peter Bush Collection

· Continue to promote and add to Collections online

Satisfies Statement of Expectation.

Focus on attracting visitation and third-party investment.

Included: as part of the foreword on page 3.

Objective 1 explains how Te Manawa aims to attract visitors using creative marketing and digital engagement.

A range of actions to attract different communities to the museum are listed under Objective 1. Actions include:

· Delivering a programme of balanced, exciting, and frequently changing exhibitions; aligning attractions to support Council’s cultural events; and,

· Engaging visitors with on-site activities and public programmes based around cultural celebrations.

Actions to attract external funding include:

· Identify partnership opportunities for ongoing funding and collaboration.

· Seeking external revenue to assist in cost of delivering the education programme (Objection 2), and

· Implementing the Te Manawa Revenue Strategy with a focus on philanthropic and sponsorship contribution against strategic targets (Objection 3).

‘Visitor Numbers’ and External Revenue are also performance measures.

Satisfies Statement of Expectation.

Develop performance measures that demonstrate performance.

To include:

increasing patronage numbers

Included:

The draft SOI lists 4 performance measures (page 11)

External revenue targets are given inclusive and excluding the Science Centre project.

Targets are modest, considering Te Manawa has exceeded the current targets (see Table 1 above).

Officers recommend online engagement measurement be scoped to help identify if other strategic objectives such as education and visitor attraction are being met, eg. Specifying traffic to certain web pages such as Explore the collection - Te Manawa, which are being developed to meet those purposes

Recommendation

1. That Te Manawa review targets to be more ambitious.

2. That Te Manawa review the measure “Online Engagement”.

Outline approach to good governance practices, financial sustainability, and environmental sustainability.

Included:

Good governance practices

The Board has listed in its approach to governance (page 10): to ‘encourage and maintain diversity in all elements of its organisation’

An action in Objective 3 is to Work with PNCC to reflect the diversity of Palmerston North in its Board.

Financial sustainability practices

Mentioned in the foreword, and in objectives in reference to the Revenue strategy and partnership funding efforts.

Environmental sustainability Actions are discussed in Objective 3 : these include:

· Reduce paper use and

· Increasing the use of sustainable products in the development and delivery of exhibitions.

Satisfies Statement of Expectation.

Outline your approach to upholding the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi including working in partnership with Rangitāne o Manawatū (see page 7 of the Oranga Papaioea City Strategy).

Included: Mentioned in the foreword.

Several objectives and actions refer to collaborating with Rangitāne and Māori to develop exhibitions and implement strategies.

Under How we operate (page 16) Te Manawa states: “We will continue to work closely with Rangitāne, as mana whenua to ensure Rangitānenuiarawa in the telling of pūrākau and the appropriate tikanga in the Kaitiakitanga of taonga”

Satisfies Statement of Expectation.

Outline approach to engaging with and enabling participation by under- represented communities^{^[1]}

Included: Action under Objective 1: Continue to engage with the city’s less-represented communities with the aim in 2026-27 to explore exhibition opportunities with one of these groups.

Specific programmes/ groups have been removed from SOI since the previous year (NOA programme, MIAB, Tamariki exhibition space).

Collaborate with Council on the development of the Civic and Cultural Masterplan and to resolving earthquake prone building issues.

Included: Mentioned as an activity in Objective 3: “Work with PNCC and external funders towards a new purpose-built, energy efficient Te Manawa complex.”

Satisfies Statement of Expectation.

Manage existing collections and any potential donations to ensure every collection item is housed in optimum conditions.

Demonstrate how:

· the collecting goals of the museum and other collections-related policies take account of collections sustainability, and current and long-term storage requirements;

· items acquired for the collection or accepted on long-term loan fall within the acquisitions policy of the museum or gallery and that Te Manawa can provide adequately for their physical protection, care, and documentation.

Partially Included

Mentioned as an activity in Objective 3: “Develop a proposal with PNCC to mitigate risks and address challenges that arise with the Art Gallery’s ability to host high-quality contemporary exhibitions and provide museum standard level of care for collections and loaned items.”

The SOI talks about the importance of maintaining collections but does not go into details about how it does so.

The SOI mentions that renovations of the Art Gallery need to occur to enable Te Manawa to provide a museum standard level of care. However, this issue does not cover the full extent of Council’s expectation. This may be better covered through a report to Council rather than including detail in the SOI.

Recommendation

That the SOI include an action to inform Council about the Acquisition Policy, how collections are protected, and any risks to the collection.

Strategic Partnerships

strengthening the partnership with the New Zealand Rugby Museum;

working with Te Manawa’s founding trusts to address shared objectives;

working with the Heritage Reference Group during the establishment phase.

Partially Included:

New Zealand Rugby Museum

An action in Objection 3 involves continuing to strengthen the relationship through the Peter Bush archive project and other related projects.

Founding Societies

Te Manawa to collaborate with founding societies to grow support and general revenue.

Heritage Reference Group

Not mentioned

Recommendation

That Te Manawa explain how it plans to work with the Heritage Reference Group.

Financial Commentary

5.2 Revenue is forecast to increase and then decrease over the next few years due to monies being sourced to fund the redevelopment of the new Science Centre. The Science Centre is contingent upon receiving funding of $1.5M through grants and sponsorship. It is scheduled to open in 2028.

5.3 Council’s operational grant remains the main source of revenue for the Trust.

Table 5: Te Manawa’s SOI Summary Financials

($)	Budget	SOI
Summary Financials	24/25	25/26	26/27	27/28
Financial Performance
PNCC Grant	3,833,599	4,024,056	4,217,826	4,310,485
Total Revenue	4,580,085	5,895,839	5,026,175	4,643,566
Total Expenses	4,548,893	4,447,797	4,304,244	4,483,777
Other Expenses	25,772	3,600	3,708	3,819
Net Surplus (Deficit)	5,420	1,444,441	718,223	155,970
Financial Position
Current Assets	333,301	544,340	362,813	430,456
Total Assets	22,412,266	24,107,218	24,777,028	24,969,538
Current Liabilities	894,604	948,697	892,626	921,710
Total Liabilities	894,604	948,697	892,626	921,710
Equity	21,517,663	23,158,521	23,884,402	24,047,828
Cash Flows
Total Net Cash Flows	(240,409)	(123,246)	52,006	140,412
Opening Cash	443,807	539,110	165,864	139,699
Closing Cash	203,398	415,864	217,870	280,111
Financial Indicators
Current Ratio	0.37	0.57	0.41	0.47
Working Capital	(561,303)	(404,357)	(529,813)	(491,254)

5.4 Whilst it is not ideal to have a current ratio of less than 1 and negative working capital, as this could indicate issues meeting its short term obligations, Te Manawa does have enough funds available in their investments (term deposits of $585k in 2024/25) to cover its short term expenses. However, an ongoing low current ratio is not sustainable and Te Manawa will need to carefully manage its cashflow over this period.

6. NEXT STEPS

6.1 Any Council comments on the draft SOI will be communicated in writing to Te Manawa.

6.2 Te Manawa will deliver their final SOI to the Culture & Sport Committee on 25 June 2025.

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 actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Arts and Heritage The action is: to support CCOs to achieve the objectives of the Arts and Heritage Plan.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being	Receiving the six-month report allows the Council to have oversight against the previously agreed SOI.

Attachments

1.	Te Manawa Muesums Trust_ Six Month Performance Report July-December 2024 ⇩
2.	Te Manawa Museums Trust- Draft Statement of Intent 2025-2028 ⇩

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2025

TITLE: Roslyn Community Hub

PRESENTED BY: Martin Brady, Community Development Advisor and Bill Carswell, Activities Manager - Property Services

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council proceed with Option 2, support further investigation of the feasibility and community views of a community hub in Roslyn and refer adjustment of budget within Programme 2343 – Citywide – New Community Hubs to the Annual Budget 2025/2026 deliberations, to allow for future decision-making regarding property required to support future provision.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Council requested a review of relevant reports and property options to respond to a request for a Roslyn community hub. There is $1.5M allocated in Programme 2343 – Citywide – New Community Hubs for Roslyn.
OPTION 1:	Support further investigation of the feasibility and community views of a community hub in Roslyn. Do not adjust budget in advance of future decision-making regarding property required to support possible new provision.
Community Views	Early engagement with key stakeholders and community in Roslyn indicates a desire for Council to support further investigation of the needs and aspirations for a community hub.
Benefits	Council gains better understanding of the needs of community and viability of a Roslyn community hub Makes the most of current stakeholder readiness and momentum to lead the feasibility work now with the support of Council
Risks	With budget not adjusted in the immediate term, there is a risk that this option would create a community and stakeholder expectation that then may not be able to be met Community needs may change between a feasibility study completed now and the budget being available in later years
Financial	Nil – a community-led feasibility study can be delivered through existing budgets; officer resource required to support can be delivered within existing budgets.
OPTION 2:	Support further investigation of the feasibility and community views of a community hub in Roslyn. Refer adjustment of budget within Programme 2343 – Citywide – New Community Hubs to the Annual Budget 2025/2026 deliberations, to allow for future decision-making regarding property required to support future provision.
Community Views	Early engagement with key stakeholders and community in Roslyn indicates a desire for Council to support further investigation of the needs and aspirations for a community hub.
Benefits	As per Option 1 Additionally, adjustment would allow immediate progress if the result of the feasibility study and community engagement was in favour of a Roslyn community hub with a property investment
Risks	Budget adjustment may not turn out to be necessary if feasibility study and community views do not support or require the establishment of a community hub in Roslyn. A budget adjustment may also raise community expectations, even though feasibility outcome may not support a hub.
Financial	Nil for the feasibility and community views component – a community-led feasibility study can be delivered through existing budgets; officer resource required to support can be delivered within existing budgets. Adjustment of budget within Programme 2343 – Citywide – New Community Hubs would move $1.5 million capital new forward from Year 7 (2030/2031) to an earlier year.
OPTION 3:	Do not support further investigation of feasibility and community views of a community hub in Roslyn at this time; do not adjust budget. Feasibility work to be completed closer to the current timing of the budget provision for a Roslyn community hub.
Community Views	Early engagement with key stakeholders and community does not support this option; there is a desire to proceed with a Roslyn community hub sooner than year 7 (2030/2031).
Benefits	No further investigation work required at this stage. This decision would give clarity to the community regarding Council’s plans for provision for Roslyn in the coming years.
Risks	The needs and expectations of the Roslyn community may not be met in the short term.
Financial	Nil.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Community hubs can provide residents with welcoming, accessible and safe spaces within neighbourhoods to gather, undertake recreational and educational activities, and receive services. Palmerston North City Council currently supports a wide range of community facilities across the city, including community centres, community houses and community libraries.

1.2 Community submissions to the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 requested Council respond to this need and establish a community hub in Roslyn.

1.3 During the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 deliberations, Council resolved:

“that the Chief Executive provide a report to council outlining property options for Roslyn, requested by ACROSS and REACH Roslyn, to support delivery of community services. The report should include a full review of existing and relevant reports to summarise the needs identified and to inform what the next steps would be, which might include a feasibility study and or engagement”.

1.4 This report responds to the above resolution, providing an overview of property options, prior reports relating to identified needs in Roslyn, and a summary of the community context based on early engagement. Three options are presented for next steps for Council’s review: to proceed with further feasibility work, to proceed with further feasibility work and pre-emptively adjust the relevant programme budget, or to do nothing further at this stage.

1.5 Officers note the second option would require adjustment of budget within Programme 2343 – Citywide – New Community Hubs and, therefore, would require referral to the Annual Budget 2025/2026 deliberations, hence the timing of this report and presentation to Council rather than the Community Committee on 21 May as previously planned.

2. Background

2.1 In the Oranga Papaioea City Strategy for 2024-2034, Council aspires to create a connected and safe community, where people have accessible and appropriate social support, access to safe and accessible community places, and access to services and facilities that are inclusive and appropriate for their needs. The Strategy states Council will be most effective when planning and service delivery responds to current community issues, and while working with our partners and communities to achieve our shared goals.

2.2 This report was requested through the Long-Term Plan 2024 – 2034, in response to community submissions regarding a need for a Roslyn community hub to deliver enhanced social services and community facility provision within the suburb.

2.3 Submissions by REACH Roslyn and ACROSS Te Kotahitanga o te Wairua (ACROSS) were made in response to the community facility developments proposed in the draft Long-Term Plan 2024-2034, in particular the community library hub planned for Awapuni. Both submissions advocated for a community hub to be established in Roslyn. ACROSS also suggested that Council purchase a building for such a hub to operate from.

2.4 Officers note the below resolution was also passed during the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 deliberations, which established the programme budgets as they currently stand:

“That Council reduce Programme 2343 – Citywide – New Community Libraries/Hubs – including Awapuni, Roslyn, Te Patikitiki Highbury to $13M (excluding inflation) total: $1M Year 1, $0 Year 2 & 3, and $3M per annum in years 4, 5, 6 and 7, allowing budgets for Roslyn $1.5M, Awapuni $8M, Te Patikitiki-Highbury $3.5M.”

2.5 Roslyn is in the north-eastern quarter of the city and has a population of 6033, according to the 2023 Census. Ethnic diversity is a defining characteristic of Roslyn, with 67.9% of residents identifying as European/Pākehā, 25% as Māori, 17.1% as Asian, 7.9% as Pacific peoples, and 2.8% belonging to other ethnicities.^{^[2]} This diversity contributes to the cultural richness of the community and influences local needs in areas such as education, social services, and community engagement.

Table 1. Socioeconomic deprivation in Roslyn, from Census 2023. Palmerston North City, vs Roslyn (Palmerston North City), Place and ethnic group summaries | Stats NZ

2.6 Roslyn also has a higher socioeconomic deprivation rating compared to Palmerston North City as a whole, with 60.8% of the suburb rated as 9 or 10 on the socioeconomic deprivation scale.

2.7 While there are relatively few social services in Roslyn, those that are there are well established and have good links with many parts of the local community. These organisations include REACH Roslyn, House Next Door, MASH Trust, and ACROSS Te Kotahitanga o te Wairua.

2.8 Officers have good long-standing relationships with these organisations and, in the preparation of this report, have engaged with these services to understand their aspirations, individual capacity, and willingness to collaborate to progress this work.

2.9 While collaboration is still in its early stages, it represents a significant step toward the development of a community hub. Further work is required to engage the community, gather their input, and develop a comprehensive understanding of how a proposed community hub would operate.

2.10 Extensive community views have not been sought in the preparation of this report, however some early engagement has been conducted over the past few months by community stakeholders. For example, REACH Roslyn conducted surveying at the Wacky Water Day event in Roslyn in February 2025. The ‘Have a Say Day’ planned for November 2024 had to be cancelled due to poor weather. While responses to the survey conducted at Wacky Water Day were few, they did indicate a demand for enhanced community services provision to support the residents of Roslyn.

3. PropertY Options

3.1 Without a full knowledge at this point of the requirements or scope of a community hub in Roslyn, Council officers have investigated property options in the area based on assumed general specifications from early engagement with community stakeholders and feasibility work for other community hubs. These specifications included: space for several meeting rooms of different sizes; back office spaces for service providers; storage facilities; kitchen, toilets, and carparking with the building being accessible and age friendly. Another key consideration was location, with the suburb being intersected by several busy roads.

3.2 After identifying and assessing several properties against the specifications, a shortlist was developed for further investigation. After conducting further investigation, officers found no properties that could be presented as options for consideration at this point in time.

3.3 Depending on the direction of Council following this report, Officers will continue to pursue possible property options to support the feasibility study; any viable options will be presented back to Council alongside the feasibility study findings.

4. review of existing & relevant reports

4.1 Alongside the investigation of property options, Officers conducted a review of existing and relevant reports, and identified four reports as having significance to community and social service provision in Roslyn. Those reports were:

a. A feasibility report completed in 2017 investigating the need for a new community hub in Kelvin Grove.

b. The 2022 Community Places Research Report

c. The 2023 Feasibility Study for Palmerston North City Council Community Libraries/Hubs and Community Centres

d. The current Community Centres’ Delivery Model Review (nearing completion and due for presentation to the Community Committee on 21 May).

4.2 These reports highlight the need to ensure planning for community hub type facilities consider factors such as future population growth, connections within the suburb to other community facilities, and providing sufficient level of service across the city as a whole (i.e. the hub and spoke network model).

4.3 The Kelvin Grove Feasibility Report in 2017 identified a critical need for a community hub and library in Kelvin Grove due to inadequate service provision and a growing population. It is noted that whilst this need was established in the report, there has been no resulting increase of provision in Kelvin Grove. While Roslyn was not specifically included in the scope of the report, it provides useful context with Kelvin Grove being a large neighbouring suburb with strong arterial routes into and through Roslyn, and it can be assumed that residents of Kelvin Grove would also be regular users of Roslyn based facilities.

4.4 The Community Places Research Report in 2022 provided a stocktake of community facilities across the city and recommended exploring alternative community buildings for utilisation as an approach to service unmet needs. This approach has been considered in the investigation of property options for this report, however, no suitable community buildings have been identified to date. If Council directs further feasibility work, this approach will be continued to ensure opportunities to maximise existing facilities are identified, particularly as specifications for a future Roslyn community hub become clearer.

4.5 The 2023 Feasibility Study, which investigated the needs for community facility provision in Awapuni and Highbury, and for the Pasifika and Multicultural communities, emphasised the necessity of establishing a hub in the city’s east to ensure equitable library and community facility coverage across the city. This report introduced the hub and spoke City Library and Community Centres Network model, which provides a framework for future provision decisions based on projected population growth and communities of interest (groups of suburbs). The proposed eastern and western hubs within the model would serve a wider catchment and provide a greater range of services and spaces.

4.6 While at the time of writing the Community Centres’ Model Review has not been completed, early findings indicate that the community centres model, which includes the Rangiora Community Centre in Roslyn, is operating well overall, with high levels of utilisation. While this is a positive finding in the context of that review, it confirms for this report that there is likely a need for further community facility provision in Roslyn.

4.7 Notably, all four reports highlight Roslyn as an area currently underserved by community services.

5. Description of options

5.1 Option 1. Support further investigation of the feasibility and community views of a community hub in Roslyn. Do not adjust budget in advance of future decision-making which may or may not be required regarding property required to support future provision.

5.2 The collaborative effort between the four organisations (REACH Roslyn, House Next Door, MASH Trust, and ACROSS) is growing momentum. This group has indicated a willingness to coordinate a feasibility study to establish the viability and specifications of a future Roslyn community hub, with funding support from Council (from within existing budgets).

5.3 Officers note MASH have done some prior scoping of a Te Whare Oranga Community Health & Wellbeing Hub which would also feed well into this feasibility study, with the potential to pilot this concept as a Roslyn community hub.

5.4 Officers would ensure the feasibility study builds from the above-mentioned existing reports and frameworks, and considers the context of Council’s provision of other facilities in the neighbourhood, including Roslyn Community Library.

5.5 In addition to this work, officers, together with stakeholders, would conduct further community engagement to ascertain the views of Roslyn residents. Officers would also engage with partners Rangitāne o Manawatū to seek their views and aspirations for the suburb.

5.6 The above would be delivered within Council’s existing budgets. No adjustment would be made to the programme budget in the immediate term, though programme budgets could be adjusted in future years as further information is received.

5.7 Findings and recommended next steps would be reported back to the Community Committee in August.

5.8 Option 2. Support further investigation of the feasibility and community views of a community hub in Roslyn. Refer adjustment of budget within Programme 2343 – Citywide – New Community Hubs to the annual budget 2025/2026 deliberations, to allow for future decision-making regarding property required to support future provision.

5.9 This option includes the feasibility study and community engagement work of Option 1 above, but also pre-emptively adjusts the relevant programme budget to allow for opportunities or recommendations that may result from the feasibility study to be progressed in a shorter timeframe.

5.10 Option 3. Do not support further investigation of feasibility and community views of a community hub in Roslyn; do not adjust budget. Feasibility work to be completed closer to the current timing of the budget provision for a Roslyn community hub.

5.11 This option maintains current levels of support for Roslyn in the short to medium term, allowing the issue to be revisited closer to the current budget allocation in year 7 (2030/2031).

5.12 Officers have the capacity to continue to conduct community development work within the Roslyn community at the current level of service through their connections via REACH Roslyn, the Roslyn Library and House Next Door.

5.13 No additional funding would be required. Community groups in Roslyn already access Council funding for initiatives such as Wacky Water Day and Movie Nights. Community funds would continue to be available for Roslyn.

6. Analysis of options

6.1 Officers recommend proceeding with Option 2, as it has the greatest potential to respond to the needs of Roslyn whilst maximising stakeholder and community momentum.

6.2 Both Options 1 and 2 would provide Council and stakeholders with essential information regarding the scope, functionality and specifications of a future Roslyn community hub. Wider community views and Rangitāne input would also be sought as part of both options, which would assist with future decision making around facility provision.

6.3 Officers view that stakeholders involved with Roslyn are currently well positioned to progress a feasibility study, with Council’s funding and support. If proceeding with Option 3, it is likely that early engagement and coordination of stakeholders would need to be revisited again closer to the current budget timing in year 7.

6.4 Option 2, where the programme budget is adjusted, provides greater opportunity to progress the recommendations of the feasibility study. If the budget is not adjusted at this stage, as in Option 1, there is a risk that community and stakeholder momentum may be lost after the feasibility study is concluded. Further, there may be confusion caused in the community by seeking their views at this stage without an ability to deliver any change in facility provision in the short term.

6.5 Whilst both Options 1 and 2 are well supported by existing reports, as reviewed above, proceeding with Option 3 would give earlier clarity to the community regarding Council’s plans for provision for Roslyn in the coming years.

6.6 On balance, Officers recommend proceeding with Option 2 as the pathway, which aligns most closely with Council’s strategic direction and aspirations for community wellbeing.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Roslyn is a suburb with comparatively high and complex wellbeing needs, however, it has a limited number of social services and community wellbeing agencies based in the suburb. Community submissions to the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 requested Council respond to this need and establish a community hub in Roslyn.

7.2 This report has provided the results of an investigation of property options for a community hub in Roslyn (i.e. none at this stage), and an overview of four relevant reports relating to the identification of community facility needs in the suburb.

7.3 Three options have been presented for next steps for Council’s consideration, with Option 2 recommended as the pathway which has the greatest potential benefit for community.

8. Next actions

8.1 Should Council proceed with Option 2, including approval through the annual budget deliberations, then the following steps would be undertaken:

· Officers would work alongside community stakeholders (including MASH Trust, ACROSS, House Next Door and REACH Roslyn) to undertake a feasibility study to ascertain the scope, functionality and specifications of a future Roslyn community hub.

· Officers, together with stakeholders, would undertake further community engagement to ascertain the needs and aspirations of Roslyn residents with regards to social service and community facility provision.

· Officers would continue to investigate property options that may be suitable for a future community hub.

· Officers would present a report to the Community Committee in August 2025 for further consideration.

8.2 Should Council opt to proceed with Option 1, the above steps would also be taken, noting there would be no need to await annual budget deliberations.

8.3 Should Council decide to proceed with Option 3, no further action would be required; the current levels of service for Roslyn would continue.

9. 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?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 7. Mahere tautāwhi hapori 7. Community Support Plan The objective is: Provide and support community centres, Youth Space, and Hancock Community House
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Community facilities contribute to the achievement of community wellbeing across all four areas, due to the range of activities, services and initiatives they support.

Attachments

Nil

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2025

TITLE: Council Work Schedule

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated 7 May 2025

COUNCIL WORK SCHEDULE 7 May 2025

#	Estimated Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause
	~~7 May 2025~~	~~Nature Calls – Options report~~	~~GM Infrastructure~~		~~29 May 2024~~ ~~Clause 95.11 -24 (rec 2)~~
	~~7 May 2025~~	~~Te Manawa – Six month and Draft SOI 25-28~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~	~~Moved from Culture and Sport~~
	~~7 May 2025~~	~~Draft Health Promotion Policy - Deliberation Report~~	~~GM Strategic Planning~~	~~Moved from Community Committee~~	~~28 August 2024~~ ~~Clause 16-24~~
	~~7 May 2025~~	~~Quarterly Performance Report~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~	~~Moved from Strategy and Finance~~
	~~7 May 2025~~	~~Treasury Report – quarterly update~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~	~~Moved from Strategy and Finance~~
	~~7 May 2025~~	~~Property options to support the delivery of Community Services in Roslyn~~	~~GM Customer & Community~~		~~29 May 2024~~ ~~Clause 95.36-24~~
1	~~7 May~~ 3 Sept 2025	Review of PNCC Appointment of Directors Policy.	GM Corporate Services		2 Oct 2024 Clause 172
2	14 May 2025	Investigate options to support Basketball Manawatū	GM Customer & Community	To form part of Annual Plan Deliberation report	Culture and Sport 26 March 2025
3	14 May 2025	Deliberations for the Annual Plan 25/26	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
4	4 June 2025	Adoption of Fees and Charges	GM Corporate Services	following consultation (Trade Waste/ Planning)	12 February Clause xx-25
5	4 June 2025	Remits received from other Territorial Authorities	GM Corporate Services	None received	Terms of Reference
6	~~4 June~~ 8 Oct 2025	Residents Survey – Action Plan	GM Strategic Planning		Terms of Reference
7	4 June 2025	Adopt Annual Plan 2025-26	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
8	4 June 2025	Deliberations- Te Motu o Poutoa Civic Marae: Governance Structure	GM Infrastructure
9	~~7 May~~ 4 June 2025	Deliberations- Local Water Done Well Options	GM Infrastructure
10	4 June 2025	Set the Rates for 2025-26	GM Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
11	4 June 2025	Approve Borrowing for 2025-26	GM Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
12	25 June 2025	Alternative Options for BPO - Nature Calls	GM Infrastructure		Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.11 -25 (rec 2)
13	25 June 2025	Quarter 3 – Economic Update	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Economic Growth
14	~~25 June~~ 6 August 2025	Approve LWDW - Water Services Delivery Plan	GM Infrastructure
15	6 August 2025	Agree revised BPO – Nature Calls	GM Infrastructure
16	6 August 2025	Review of CEDA Directors Policy	GM Corporate Services		2 Oct 2024 Clause 172
17	6 August 2025	Report back on Investment Options for PN Airport	GM Corporate Services		6 December 2023 Clause 197-23
18	6 August 2025	Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan Steering Group – 6-monthly update	GM Strategic Planning		Terms of Reference
19	6 August 2025	Appointment of Trustees on Council Controlled Organisations	GM Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
20	8 Oct 2025	Adopt Annual Report 2024-25	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
21	8 Oct 2025	Low Carbon Fund Allocations 2024/25	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Sustainability Committee	21 August 2024 Clause 24-24
22	8 Oct 2025	Waste Management and Minimisation plan 2019 - annual progress update for 2024/25 FY	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Sustainability Committee	9 Sept 2020 Clause 17-20
23	8 Oct 2025	Citywide Emissions Inventory 2024 Annual Report	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Sustainability Committee	Climate Change Plan Action 3
24	8 Oct 2025	PNCC Organisational Emissions Inventory 2024/25 Annual Report	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Sustainability Committee	Climate Change Plan Action 1
25	TBC	Summerhays Reports – Partnership Models Expressions of Interest	GM Infrastructure	Lying on the Table	1 May 2024 Clause 66-24 and 74 -24
26	TBC	Effectiveness of Civics Education Initiatives – Annual progress report	GM Customer & Community		29 May 2024 Clause 95.29 -24

Proactive Release of Confidential Decisions

Date of meeting	Report Title	Released	Withheld
2 October 2024	Civic Honours 2024	Report, Decision and Division	N/A
11 December 2024	Contract time extension- Nature Calls technical experts	Report, Decision and Division	N/A
11 December 2024	Appointment of Directors to Central Economic Development Agency 2024	Report, Decision and Division	Attachment
5 March 2025	Reappointment of Trustees/Directors on Council Controlled Organisations	Report, Attachment, Decision and Division	N/A

[1] Under – represented communities means - Māori, Pasifika, minority ethnic groups, former refugees, people with disabilities, children and young people, older people and Rainbow communities.

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

1.	Capital Programme Estimated Carry Forward List ⇩
2.	Capital Programme Early Commencement List ⇩

1.	Monthly Financial Dashboard - March 2025 ⇩
2.	Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 31 March 2025 ⇩
3.	Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 31 March 2025 - Appendix 1 ⇩
4.	Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 31 March 2025 - Appendicies 2-10 ⇩