Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 4 June 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 07 May 2025, commencing at 9am.

Members

Present:

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

Apologies:

Councillor Roly Fitzgerald (Council Business)

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 2.27pm after consideration of clause 68-25 and returned to the meeting at 2.34pm during consideration of clause 70-25. She left the meeting at 3.38pm during consideration of 71-25 and returned to the meeting at 3.45pm during consideration of clause 73-25. She was not present for clauses 69-25, 71-25 and 72-25 inclusive.

Councillors Lew Findlay and Billy Meehan left the meeting at 3.47pm after clause 74-25. They were not present for clauses 75-25 and 76-25.

Councillor Orphee Mickalad entered the meeting at 4.05pm after consideration of clause 75-24. He was not present for clause 75-24.

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

62-25

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the apologies.

Clause 62-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

63-25	Public Comment
	Susan Baty, spoke in support of item 13 Roslyn Community Hub and the proposal to bring the capital money forward to 2025/26 to provide momentum for the project. An informal steering group has been formed consisting of the community groups: ACROSS, REACH, the House Next Door and the MASH Trust. They plan to develop a feasibility study and further consult the Roslyn community. Susan read out a comment from Karleen Edwards, Chair of MASH Trust in support of the project. Happy to see a community hub being added to the Roslyn Library. Hamish Williams, a food vendor at the Arena spoke on Item 9 Draft Health Promotion Policy – Deliberations. He spoke in opposition to the proposed ban on selling Sugary drinks at council-owned facilities. He made the following comments: · Questioned how the policy would be enforced. · Felt the proposed policy was bias towards cold beverages, as proposed policy allows someone to buy a hot drink and add sugar to it, but not a drink that already contain sugar. · Happy to consider policy that requires non-sugary drink options to be provided alongside sugary options.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED That Council receive the public comment
	Clause 63-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

64-25

Confirmation of Minutes

Correction to vote: Setting Council’s Risk Management Appetite and Tolerance Levels (clause 52-25 ). The vote should be 12 for and 2 against. Councillors Barrett and Johnson voted against the motion and Councillor Marshall -Lobb was not present for the vote.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 2 April 2025 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record (as amended).

Clause 64-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

65-25	Consideration of options to take forward for Nature Calls Report, presented by Mike Monaghan Manager 3 Waters and Anna Lewis Project Manager.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 1. That Council direct the Chief Executive to discard Option I as not a practicable option because of cost for Nature Calls.
	Clause 65.1-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, 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 direct the Chief Executive to discard Option H as not a practicable option because of cost and compliance for Nature Calls.
	Clause 65.2-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 3. That Council direct the Chief Executive to discard Option G as not a practicable option because of cost and compliance for Nature Calls.
	Clause 65.3-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 4. That Council direct the Chief Executive to discard Option F as not a practicable option because of cost and likelihood of Treaty Partner objections for Nature Calls.
	Clause 65.4-25 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillor Patrick Handcock.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 5. That Council direct the Chief Executive to discard Option D as not a practicable option because of cost for Nature Calls.
	Clause 65.5-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	On the motion: That Council direct the Chief Executive to discard Option E as not a practicable option because of cost for Nature Calls. The motion lost 7 votes to 8, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad and Karen Naylor Against: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

The meeting adjourned at 10.40am

The meeting returned at 11.00am

66-25

Draft Health Promotion Policy - Deliberations

Report, presented by David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning.

The Mayor moved alternative motions to remove all references to Sugar Sweetened Beverages from the draft Health Promotions Policy, as it was considered Council over-reach and a restriction of freedom of choice to prohibit the sale of sugar sweetened beverages at Council facilities.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. 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) removing all references to Sugar Sweetened Beverages.

2. That Council authorise the Chief Executive to approve the final amendments to the Health Promotion Policy that remove all references to Sugar Sweetened Beverages, and proceed to allow the sale of Sugar Sweetened Beverages at its venues and events.

3. That Council adopt 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) with amendments and determine that further consultation is not warranted.

4. That Council rescind the Sun Protection Policy 2010; Healthy Beverage Policy 2017; and Auahi Kore Smoke-free and Vape-free Policy 2020.

Clause 66-25 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:

For:

Against:

Councillor Karen Naylor.

67-25

Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 31 March 2025

Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager - Finance and John Aitken, Manager - Project Management Office.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Quarterly Performance and Financial Report – period ending 31 March 2025’, and related attachments, presented to Council on 7 May 2025.

2. That Council approves the following programme transfers for the 2024/25 Financial Year:

a. Increase Programme 1791 – Parks Depot – Building Renewals by $330,000, and

b. Decrease Programme 186 – Public Toilet Renewals by $120,000, and

c. Decrease Programme 1763 – CET Arena Property Purchase by $210,000.

Clause 67-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 12.35pm

The meeting returned at 1.35pm

68-25	Te Manawa Museums Trust: Six-Month Report 1 July - 31 December 2024 and Draft Statement of Intent 2025-28 Memorandum, presented by Sarah Claridge, Governance Advisor. Geoff Jameson, interim Chair and Susanna Shadbolt Chief Executive, Te Manawa presented their six month report and draft Statement of Intent. Cr Zabelin moved an amendment to delete the performance measure recommendations (see Table 4 in the report), from the list of comments requiring Te Manawa’s consideration. The performance targets were ambitious enough and did not need to be reviewed.
	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 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, except the review of online and visitor targets.
	Clause 68-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	An amendment to recommendation 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, except the review of online and visitor targets. The amendment was passed 8 votes to 7, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Patrick Handcock, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor.

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 2:27pm

69-25

Treasury Report - Nine months ending 31 March 2025

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

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

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

Clause 69-25 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, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

70-25	Capital Delivery 2025/26 Memorandum, presented by John Aitken, Manager Project Management Office. Councillor Rachel Bowen returned to the meeting at 2:34pm.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 1. That Council a. Refer the carry forward of Capital Programmes from the 2024/25 Financial Year to the 2025/26 Financial Year, as detailed in Attachment 1, to the Annual Budget Deliberations meeting on 14 May 2025. 2. That Council b. Refer the adjusted capital programme budgets, as detailed in Attachment 2, to the Annual Budget Deliberations meeting on 14 May 2025.
	Clause 70-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 2. That Council a. Approve an increase to capital budgets in the 2024/25 Financial Year to allow for early commencement of capital works, as detailed in Attachment 2.
	Clause 70-25 above was carried 10 votes to 5, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Mark Arnott, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and William Wood.

71-25

Roslyn Community Hub

Report, presented by Martin Brady, Community Development Advisor and Bill Carswell, Activities Manager - Property Services.

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 3:38pm.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council agree to support further investigation of the feasibility and community views of a community hub in Roslyn (Option 1), and do not adjust budget in advance of future decision-making regarding property required to support possible new provision.

Clause 71-25 above was carried 9 votes to 5, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad and Karen Naylor.

Against:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

72-25

Submission on Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Manager Governance.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled “Submission on Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.”

Clause 72-25 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

73-25

Council Work Schedule

Councillor Rachel Bowen returned to the meeting at 3:45pm.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

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

Clause 73-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Exclusion of Public

74-25

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

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

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
18.	Confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 2 April 2025 Part II Confidential	For the reasons set out in Council of 2 April 2025, held in public.
19.	Purchase of two parcels of land for the purpose of a City East Bore and a City North Bore.	COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: This information needs to be kept confidential to allow Council to engage in commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage	s7(2)(h)

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 74-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The public part of the meeting finished at 3.47pm

The meeting adjourned at 3.47pm

The meeting resumed in Part II at 4.00pm

Confirmed 4 June 2025

Mayor

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 14 May 2025, commencing at 9.00am.

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, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Apologies:

Councillor Rachel Bowen

Councillor Rachel Bowen entered the meeting at 9.44am during consideration of clause 78. She was not present for clauses 77-25 to 79-25 inclusive.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 1.00pm after consideration of clause 80.4-25. She entered the meeting at 3.25pm after clause 80.11-25. She was not present for clauses 80.5 -25 to 80.11-25 inclusive.

Councillor Billy Meehan left the meeting at 4.32pm after consideration of Motion W He entered the meeting again at 4.38pm after the consideration of Motion X. He was not present for Motion X.

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

77-25

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the apologies.

Clause 77-25 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.

Declaration of Interest

Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb declared a conflict of interest in Item 8, Annual Budget Deliberation (Motion N) and took no part in discussion or debate on that motion.

Councillor Vaughan Dennison declared a conflict of interest in Item 7 Community housing partnership programme (clause 79-25) and took no further part in discussion or debate.

78-25	Public Comment
	Anthony Lewis made a public comment on the suggestion that the branch libraries of Awapuni and Roslyn could be closed. He was deeply opposed to this suggestion as a vehicle to reduce rates, and spoke on the value of libraries.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED That Council receive the Public Comment.
	Clause 78-25 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.

79-25

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 30 April 2025 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 79-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

80-25	2025/26 Annual Budget - Deliberations Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager – Finance, Cameron McKay, Chief Financial Officer and Chris Dyhrberg Chief Infrastructure Officer Councillor Rachel Bowen entered the meeting at 9:44am. The meeting adjourned at 11.00am The meeting resumed at 11.22am
	Operating Budgets
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On Motion A: Reduce the internal Marketing budget (from within overheads) by $200K, noting that this will mean a reduction in the level of service. The motion was lost 4 votes to 12. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and William Wood Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad, and Kaydee Zabelin.
B	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood. RESOLVED Reduce the catering budget by $100K.
	Clause 80.1-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor On Motion C (a): Reduce the Economic Events budget by $50k The motion was lost 4 votes to 12. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson and Orphée Mickalad.
	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor On Motion C (b): Reduce the Community and Commemorative Events budget by $100K, by holding some events every second year and reducing scale of some events (excluding ANZAC and Remembrance Day). The motion was lost 5 votes to 11. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and William Wood Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad, and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On Motion D: Amend the Te Manawa Museum operating grant to same level as 2024/25 amount plus inflation. The motion was lost 3 votes to 13. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Leonie Hapeta, Karen Naylor and William Wood Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved William Wood, seconded Billy Meehan On Motion E: Reduce the Climate Change and Sustainability budget by $267K The motion was lost 3 votes to 13. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Karen Naylor and William Wood Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, and Kaydee Zabelin.
F	Moved William Wood, seconded Mark Arnott. RESOLVED That Council work with Canine Friends Pet Therapy charity to develop a discount scheme for their dog registrations (if appropriate).
	Clause 80.2-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
G	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood. RESOLVED That the Professional services budget is kept to the draft Annual Budget 2025/26 level of $14.1M.
	Clause 80.3-25 above was carried 11 votes to 5, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Roly Fitzgerald, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood. Against: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock and Kaydee Zabelin.
H	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor On Motion H: Amend Strategic Priority Grant funding increase to Year 24/25 amount plus inflation. ($1,661,703 this year – change to $1,701,583 for 25/26) ($166,452 reduction from draft Annual Budget) The motion was lost 3 votes to 13. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and William Wood Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad, and Kaydee Zabelin.
1a	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council instruct the Chief Executive to prepare a draft Annual Budget 2025/26 for consideration and adoption by the Council at its meeting on 4 June 2025 and that it incorporates the operating budget changes agreed above and the following: a. An increase of $372K in the operating expense budget for Transport (Roading) for the maintenance of street trees offset in part by a $223k reduction in the operating expense budget for Active Communities (Sportsfields and Local Reserves) (Attachment 3).
	Clause 80.4-25 above was carried 15 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillor William Wood.
	The meeting adjourned at 1.00pm The meeting resumed at 2.05pm Councillor Leonie Hapeta was not present when the meeting resumed at 2:05pm Operating Programmes
	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor On Motion I: Remove Programme 1539 - City Ambassadors - $75K The motion was lost 3 votes to 12. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and William Wood Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad, and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On Motion J: Defer Programme 1949 - Civic & Cultural Precinct ($82K) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget The motion was lost 4 votes to 11. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Lew Findlay, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan and Orphée Mickalad.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On Motion K: Remove Programme 1180 - Focus Group research - $20K The motion was lost 6 votes to 9. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, and Kaydee Zabelin.
L	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood. RESOLVED Defer $250K of Programme 1520 - Digital Transformation to 2026/27.
	Clause 80.5-25 above was carried 8 votes to 7, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Mark Arnott, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock and Lorna Johnson.
M	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen. RESOLVED That Council create a new operating programme for funding of $7,500 to MaLGRA for 2025/26 to enable them to retain a space in Hancock Community House.
	Clause 80.6-25 above was carried 10 votes to 5, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad and Karen Naylor.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Rachel Bowen On Motion N: That Council create a new operating programme to provide civic support for the Palmerston North Boys High School Hockey Turf project of $33.5K in 2025/26 and refer $33.5K per year to 2026/27 and 2027/28 annual budget processes. The motion was lost 7 votes to 7. The voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, and William Wood Against: Councillors Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Kaydee Zabelin. Note: Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb declared a conflict of interest, withdrew from the discussion and sat in the gallery.
O	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Brent Barrett. RESOLVED That Council create a new operating programme to provide civic support for Massey’s Te Waimana o Turitea Botanical Gardens project – of $50K in 2025/26 and refer $50K per year to 2026/27 and 2027/28 annual budget processes.
	Clause 80.7-25 above was carried 8 votes to 7, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock and Orphée Mickalad. Against: Councillors Mark Arnott, Lew Findlay, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
P	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Orphée Mickalad. RESOLVED That Council create a new operating programme to provide support for Manawatū Rugby in Community Rugby and towards Cyclones and Turbos teams of $25K in 2025/26 and refer $25K per year to 2026/27 and 2027/28 annual budget processes.
	Clause 80.8-25 above was carried 10 votes to 5, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan and Orphée Mickalad. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Patrick Handcock, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
Q	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Rachel Bowen. RESOLVED That Council create an operating programme to fund the costs of Te Ahu a Turanga gateway carpark at $20,000 in 2025/26, and refer ongoing management costs to the 2026/27 annual budget and 2027 Long-term Plan.
	Clause 80.9-25 above was carried 13 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Karen Naylor and William Wood.
2a	Moved Grant Smith, seconded William Wood. RESOLVED 2a. That Council create a new operating programme of $90,000 for the investigation of bus and vehicle pickups and drop offs off-road zone and other options in large green space-road reserve on Featherston Street opposite Boys High and direct the Chief Executive to report back on the findings of the investigations and potential options to inform future annual budgets.
	Clause 80.10-25 above was carried 12 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor.
1b	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Orphée Mickalad. RESOLVED 1. That Council instruct the Chief Executive to prepare a draft Annual Budget 2025/26 for consideration and adoption by the Council at its meeting on 4 June 2025 and that it incorporates the following: b. Operating programmes (including carry forwards relating to Programme 1520 – Digital Transformation and Programme 2346 - Organisation-wide system replacement or new systems initiatives) as outlined in Annual Budget 2025/26 – Schedule of Proposed Operating Programmes (Attachment 4); with amendments as agreed above, and any related resolution(s) from Item 7.
	Clause 80.11-25 above was carried 13 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Karen Naylor and William Wood.
	The meeting adjourned at 3.10pm The meeting resumed at 3.25pm Councillor Leonie Hapeta returned to the meeting at 3.25pm. Capital New
R	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED Reduce Council’s planned capital new spend on vehicles and plant by $677K by: a) reducing Programme 99 - New Vehicles by $157K (Was $322K – change to $161K); b) deferring Programme 2449 - Fleet upgrade to alternative fuel ($357K) to the 2026/2027 AB; c) deferring Programme e 1875 - Upgrade to Electric Vehicles ($163K) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget.
	Clause 80.12-25 above was carried 11 votes to 5, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Roly Fitzgerald, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock and Lorna Johnson.
Sb	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED b. Deferring Programme 1853 - Development of existing reserves ($85K) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget;
	Clause 80.13-25 above was carried 9 votes to 7, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock and Lorna Johnson.
Sc	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED c. Deferring Programme 1846 - Walkway Extensions ($189K) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget;
	Clause 80.14-25 above was carried 11 votes to 5, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Patrick Handcock and Lorna Johnson.
Sd	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED d. Deferring Programme 1847 - Esplanade New ($61K) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget.
	Clause 80.15-25 above was carried 13 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Lew Findlay and Roly Fitzgerald.
T	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED Defer Programme 902 – Seismic Strength Council Building ($2.042M) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget
	Clause 80.16-25 above was carried 9 votes to 7, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta and Lorna Johnson.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On Motion U: Defer Programme 2335 - Stoney Creek Road ($1M) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget. The motion was lost 7 votes to 9. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock and Lorna Johnson.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Kaydee Zabelin On Motion V: Defer Programme 1194 – CET Arena Masterplan ($8.528M) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget. The motion was lost 3 votes to 13. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Karen Naylor and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, , Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, and William Wood.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Billy Meehan On the Motion W: Defer Programme 2456 – Cliff Road ($1.862M) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget; and Defer Te Motu O Poutoa project by one year by deferring Programme 1895 – TMOP ($5.651M) and Programme 2239 - TMOP design ($1.104) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget. The motion was lost 6 votes to 10. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Mark Arnott, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson and Kaydee Zabelin. Councillor Billy Meehan left the meeting at 4.32pm
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On Motion X: Remove Programme 2499 - Smart Cities Budget - $51K The motion was lost 4 votes to 11. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta and Lorna Johnson.
	Councillor Billy Meehan returned to the meeting at 4.38pm Amendment for recommendation Y Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Leonie Hapeta. Amend Programme 2231 - Public Transport - additional bus shelters to $~~400K~~ 700K. The amendment was passed 9 vote to 7, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood. Against: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson and Kaydee Zabelin.
Y	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED Amend Programme 2231 - Public Transport - additional bus shelters to $700K.
	Clause 80.17-25 above was carried 12 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Rachel Bowen, Lorna Johnson and Billy Meehan. Note: Councillor Debi Marshal Lobb did not vote.
5	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED 5. That Council refer a budget of $700,000 for Programme 2231 – City Wide Public Transport – Additional Bus Shelters to the Annual Budget 2026/27 process.
	Clause 80.18-25 above was carried 15 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillor Roly Fitzgerald.
3	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Patrick Handcock. RESOLVED 3. That Council adopt Option 1 – Maintain the status quo with no changes to the existing layout for left hand turning lanes onto Rangitikei Street from Featherston Street, at no cost
	Clause 80.19-25 above was carried 10 votes to 6, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan and William Wood.
Extension of meeting time	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. That the meeting time be extended to 7pm. Clause 80-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
8	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED That Council agree the proposed capital new programme budget reductions set out in the tabled item to the meeting of 14 May 2025, excepting Programmes 1846, 1847 and 902 (already dealt with) and 2452, 1099 (excluded).
	Clause 80.20-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
1c	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council instruct the Chief Executive to prepare a draft Annual Budget 2025/26 for consideration and adoption by the Council at its meeting on 4 June 2025 and that it incorporates the following: c. Capital new programmes including carry forwards and amendments as outlined in Annual Budget 2025/26 – Schedule of Proposed Capital New Programmes (Attachment 5) with amendments as agreed above.
	Clause 80.21-25 above was carried 15 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor.
	The meeting adjourned at 5.05pm. The meeting resumed at 5.15pm. Capital Growth
1d + 9	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED That Council agree the proposed capital growth programme budget reductions set out in the tabled item to the meeting of 14 May 2025. 1. That Council instruct the Chief Executive to prepare a draft Annual Budget 2025/26 for consideration and adoption by the Council at its meeting on 4 June 2025 and that it incorporates the following: d. Capital growth programmes including carry forwards and amendments as outlined in Annual Budget 2025/26 – Schedule of Proposed Capital Growth Programmes (Attachment 6); with amendments as agreed above. 9. That Council agree the proposed capital growth programme budget reductions set out in the tabled item to the meeting of 14 May 2025.
	Clause 80.22-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Capital Renewals
AB	Moved William Wood, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED Reduce Programme 1879 - Council Vehicles by $500k (Was $1791K – change to $1291K).
	Clause 80.23-25 above was carried 14 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Patrick Handcock and Lorna Johnson.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On Motion AC: Reduce Programme 281 - CAB renewals by 102k. The motion was lost 6 votes to 10. The voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith), and Councillors Mark Arnott, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood. Against: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On Motion AD: Defer $610k from Programme 1127 - Shade House & Bonsai Display to 2027/28. The motion was lost 3 votes to 13. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Mark Arnott, Karen Naylor and William Wood. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith), and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood On the motion Tabled item Capital Renewals: That Council agree the proposed capital renewal programme budget reductions set out in the tabled item to the meeting of 14 May 2025. The motion was lost 2 votes to 14. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Karen Naylor and Orphée Mickalad. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith), and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
1e	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council instruct the Chief Executive to prepare a draft Annual Budget 2025/26 for consideration and adoption by the Council at its meeting on 4 June 2025 and that it incorporates the following: e. Capital renewal programmes including carry forwards and amendments as outlined in Annual Budget 2025/26 – Schedule of Proposed Capital Renewal Programmes (Attachment 7); with amendments as agreed above.
	Clause 80.24-25 above was carried 14 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Billy Meehan and Karen Naylor.
	Rates
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Brent Barrett On motion Alternative 4(a): That the Uniform Annual General Charge be $200. The motion was lost 8 votes to 8. The voting being as follows: For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, and Kaydee Zabelin. Against The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Leonie Hapeta, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, and William Wood
4 a	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 4. That the draft Annual Budget 2025/26 include the following rating assumptions: (a)That the Uniform Annual General Charge be $300.
	Clause 80.25-25 above was carried 13 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Patrick Handcock and Lorna Johnson.
4 b	Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 4. That the draft Annual Budget 2025/26 include the following rating assumptions: b. That differential surcharges be changed for the FM group of semi-rural properties (0.2 to 5 ha) to make the discount (compared with the MS group) be 45%.
	Clause 80.26-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Amendment for recommendation 4b Moved William Wood, seconded Lorna Johnson 4b That differential surcharges be changed for the FM group of semi-rural properties (0.2 to 5 ha) to make the discount (compared with the MS group) be ~~42.5% for the 2025/26 year, with a proposal for further movement to 40% being referred to the 2026/27 annual budget process~~ 45%. The amendment was passed 15 votes for and 1 against. The voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, , Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against Councillor Brent Barrett
4 c	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 4. That the draft Annual Budget 2025/26 include the following rating assumptions: c. Targeted rates for services adjusted as necessary to reflect changes to the budgets for the activities concerned.
	Clause 80.27-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
6 + 7	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 6. That Council note that the priority for Programme 1003 – Whakarongo Intersection Safety Upgrades as set in the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan has been changed and is now intended to enable greenfield residential subdivision development, as set out in Attachment 8. 7. That Council note that where assumptions change as a result of external funding application decisions, Officers will report to Council. The categories of programmes to which this applies are: a. NZTA funding requests as outlined in section 2.4.2 b. Better Off Funded programmes as outlined in Attachment 5 c. Multi-Cultural Facility as outlined in section 2.4.2
	Clause 80.28-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

81-25

Community housing partnership programme

Memorandum, presented by Julie Macdonald, Manager Strategy and Policy.

Moved William Wood, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

RESOLVED

1. That the Chief Executive report on options and budget requirements to address identified opportunities for a community housing partnership programme.

Clause 81-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Note:

Councillor Vaughan Dennison declared a conflict of interest, withdrew from the discussion and sat in the gallery.

Council Work Schedule

The Council work schedule was not considered.

	Karakia Whakamutunga
	Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb closed the meeting with karakia.

The meeting finished at 6.13pm.

Confirmed 4 June 2025

Mayor

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 4 June 2025

TITLE: Setting Rates for 2025/26

Presented By: Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council adopt the resolution to set the rates for the 2025/26 year (Attachment 1).

2. That Council note that the setting of rates is a significant decision within the parameters of the Local Government Act 2002 and that it is satisfied there has been compliance with the decision-making and consultation requirements of the Act.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 prescribes that the rates must be set by resolution of the Council and be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Funding Impact Statement (contained within the Long-term Plan or Annual Plan) for the year.

1.2 Rates are the Council’s principal source of revenue. It is important that rates be set in the timeframes outlined so that Council will have the ability to fund its approved budget. The rates outlined in the attached resolution are calculated to generate the rates revenue for 2025/26 as outlined in the Council’s 2025/26 Annual Budget to be formally adopted on 4 June 2025.

1.3 The recommendations assume the Council will have adopted the Annual Budget earlier in the meeting.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 It is assumed the Council will adopt the 2025/26 Annual Budget on 4 June. The Annual Budget determines the net revenue to be sought from ratepayers to fund operations and new programmes for the 2025/26 year.

2.2 The rates to be set are designed to cover a net sum of external income for Council of $145.866 million (plus GST) plus a sum to cover rates for Council owned properties as approved by the adoption of the Annual Budget.

2.3 The resolution (Attachment 1) outlines the details of the rates to be set. Rates throughout the report and the resolution are GST inclusive unless stated otherwise.

2.4 The following table demonstrates the changes for the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) and the fixed amounts for services:

2024/25

GST incl.

2025/26

GST incl.

Uniform Annual General Charge

Water Supply

Kerbside Recycling

Rubbish & Public Recycling

Wastewater disposal

Wastewater pan charge

Metered water charge (p cu metre)

$200

$415

$144

$51

$375

$1.78538

$300

$487

$188

$69

$397

$1.96305

2.5 The budgeted revenue from the UAGC plus the Rubbish & Recycling fixed charges represents 11.2% of total rates revenue (including metered water charges) compared with 8.4% in 2024/25, 10.5% in 2023/24,10.5% in 2022/23, 18.1% in 2021/22, 19.3% in 2020/21, 19.8% in 2019/20 and a band of 25 to 26% over the previous five years and the legislative maxima of 30%.

2.6 The resolution incorporates the Council’s decisions (as outlined in the Revenue & Financing Policy and the Annual Budget) that the targeted rate to fund those activities that are primarily focused on achieving Council’s innovative and growing city goal (i.e. transport, economic development, urban design and housing) and will be based on the capital value. Also that the sum to be collected from the capital value base will approximately double as part of the three year implementation of a greater share of the rates being based on the Capital value.

2.7 Examples of the rates which will be assessed are shown below:

Land Value

2024/25

Capital Value

2024/25

Actual Rates

2024/25

Land Value

2025/26

Capital Value

2025/26

Actual Rates

2025/26

Single unit residential

Average

Median

Quartile 1

Quartile 3

468,000

455,000

360,000

540,000

739,000

690,000

590,000

840,000

3,456

3,380

2,942

3,799

352,000

330,000

260,000

410,000

630,000

580,000

495,000

720,000

3,532

3,390

3,015

3,862

2 unit residential

Average

Median

Quartile 1

Quartile 3

561,000

525,000

450,000

625,000

829,000

770,000

675,000

920,000

5,985

5,736

5,237

6,417

436,000

380,000

315,000

475,000

818,000

640,000

560,000

781,000

6,366

5,764

5,266

6,529

Non-residential

Average

Median

Quartile 1

Quartile 3

1,022,000

620,000

385,000

1,110,000

2,402,000

1,030,000

610,000

2,295000

19,783

11,687

7,456

21,020

1,087,000

640,000

385,000

1,200,000

2,510,000

1,100,000

640,000

2,430,000

21,487

11,966

7,446

22,738

Rural & semi-serviced

(5ha or more)

Average

Median

Quartile 1

Quartile 3

1,373,000

730,000

520,000

1,218,000

1,585,000

1,102,000

551,000

1,670,000

2,374

1,434

1,045

2,189

1,284,000

680,000

475,000

1,170,000

1,640,000

1,073,000

561,000

1,718,000

2,791

1,746

1,244

2,680

Rural & semi-serviced

(between 0.2 & 5ha)

Average

Median

Quartile 1

Quartile 3

549,000

520,000

435,000

590,000

1,202,000

1,180,000

950,000

1,390,000

2,222

2,131

1,812

2,401

513,000

485,000

415,000

560,000

1,128,000

1,100,000

850,000

1,320,000

2,651

2,551

2,170

2,925

Miscellaneous

Average

Median

Quartile 1

Quartile 3

916,000

550,000

295,000

965,000

1,746,000

720,000

400,000

1,445,000

6,074

3,551

2,030

6,150

942,000

530,000

243,000

1,000,000

2,144,000

750,000

410,000

1,535,000

8,086

4,107

2,170

7,580

2.8 The following graph demonstrates the breakdown of the average single unit rates for 2025/26 compared with 2024/25.

2.9 The City was revalued for rating purposes in September 2024 and these values will be the base for setting and assessing general rates and the capital value based targeted rate for 2025/26.

2.10 The following graph shows the rate-in-the-$ for the general rate for 2025/26 compared with 2024/25. For most of the categories (excluding non-residential) the rate-in-in-the-$ for 2025/26 is similar to that for 2024/25. The reason they have not reduced (as might be expected with the increased share of the rates based on the capital value) is that rateable land values (especially for residential properties) reduced significant following the 2024 city revaluation.

2.11 The following graph shows the rates-in-the-$ for the targeted rate to fund activities primarily associated with delivering goal 1 outcomes and based on the capital value. The 2025/26 rate-in-the-$ is more than double that for 2024/25 due to the second stage implementation of the increased share of the rates based on capital value and also the lower capital values following the city revaluation.

2.12 Council’s decisions regarding the rating system effectively mean this targeted rate will increase by a further 50% in 2026/27 and be compensated for by commensurate reductions in the general rate.

2.13 The Government’s rates rebates scheme for residential homeowners on lower incomes has provided much needed assistance. 2,100 city ratepayers have received a total of $1.53 million from the scheme during 2024/25 to date – an average of $728. Each year the Government updates the qualifying criteria for the scheme by a CPI adjustment.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 The recommended actions in this report are of an administrative nature to implement the decisions incorporated in the Annual Budget. Although procedural, they are significant and must be passed in the form outlined.

3.2 Once adopted Council officers will complete the administrative actions necessary to assess rates on individual properties then deliver rates assessments and invoices for the first instalment from 1 August 2025. As usual a ratepayer newsletter will be produced and distributed as part of the rates package. Publicity will be given to the availability of the rates rebate scheme.

4. Compliance and administration

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

Attachments

Resolution to set rates for 2025-26 ⇩

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 4 June 2025

TITLE: Local Water Done Well Decision

PRESENTED BY: Mike Monaghan, Manager Three Waters, Julie Keane, Transition Manager, Olivia Wix, Manager Communications, Scott Mancer, Manager Finance

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That this matter or decision is recognised as of high significance in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2. That Council confirm a Joint Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation as its preferred future Water Services Delivery Model.

3. That Council agree to partner with Horowhenua District Council and Rangitīkei District Council in a Joint Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation (WSCCO).

4. That Council agree to continue to work with Ruapehu District Council and Whanganui District Council with a view to including them in a Joint WSCCO upon confirmation from those councils.

5. That Council instruct the Chief Executive to prepare a Joint Water Services Delivery Plan to be brought back to Council in August 2025 for approval prior to submission to the Department of Internal Affairs before the 3 September deadline, which includes further information relating to the management of stormwater.

Summary of options analysis for the future delivery model of water services

Problem or Opportunity

Council is required under legislation to choose its preferred water services delivery option and submit a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) to Central Government by 3 September 2025.

The consultation period has closed, and hearings have been held. This report sets out considerations to choose a delivery option.

OPTION 1:

The Four’- Multi-Council Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation – jointly owned by Palmerston North City, Horowhenua, Manawatū and Kāpiti Coast District Councils

This is no longer a viable option after Manawatu and Kapiti Coast District Councils resolved to remain with an Internal Business Unit (IBU).

Community Views

Community views have been sought, the response to consultation on the proposal reflected a high degree of support for this option.

Benefits

Option 1 would have achieved a good level of scale with the least number of partner councils. This level of scale would have been likely to unlock operational benefits relating to innovation, procurement, and specialist staffing recruitment and retention. This option would have allowed Council to access higher borrowing levels to enable required investment in water infrastructure.

Risks

Manawatū District Council (MDC) and Kāpiti Coast District Council (KCDC) both released consultation documents indicating a preference for IBUs to retain control of water services. Consultation closed 11 April (MDC) and 13 April (KCDC). Community feedback showed that the public is in favour of these positions for MDC and KCDC.

In reports to their Councils dated 15 May 2025 and 27 May 2025 they have both resolved to proceed with an IBU making this option no longer viable.

Financial

In today’s dollars, without inflation, the household costs under this option would have been:

Within 10 years	$2,100 per year
30 years	$1,400 per year

This option would transition the debt and assets related to water services from Council to the new WSCCO. This would create additional capacity to Council to continue to borrow to fund its non-water activities.

OPTION 2:

‘Up to 6’- Multi-Council Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation of others in Manawatū-Whanganui region

A water organisation jointly owned by Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) and one or more other Councils within the Manawatū-Whanganui (M-W) region boundary.

Community Views

Community views were sought on Option 2, noting that we could not be specific on the councils which might be included. Respondents to this proposal provided mixed views citing the challenge with not knowing the costs that relate to the specific option, the complexities that come with a larger grouping and the wide geographic area that this option would cover.

Benefits

Option 2 achieves greater scale in terms of number of connections, spread over a far greater geographic area than Option 3 (Status Quo with changes) . This option also offers increased efficiency depending on the number of councils involved.

Risks

Governance arrangements under this option become more complex.

Financial

Depending on the combination of Councils the ongoing household costs without inflation were estimated to be:

Within 10 years	$2,700 per year
30 years	$1,800 per year

OPTION 3:

Status quo with changes (not financially sustainable)

Community Views

Community views on Option 3 were sought, and there were mixed views, including the potential impact on Council services, losing the ability to manage water services locally and not understanding why this option could not be achieved.

Benefits

Ability to continue to influence day to day decision-making, continued input into the key priorities, and retaining community voice.

Risks

The main risks associated with this option include affordability for the community, and the impact on future levels of service for non-water services due to Council’s inability to access higher borrowing levels.

Financial

The ongoing household costs without inflation were estimated to be:

Within 10 years	$3,800 per year
30 years	$2,700 per year

Council debt levels under this option would be similar to now. However, with the new legislation requirements that all waters revenue is to be ring-fenced and spent only on water related projects. This delivery model does not provide additional debt capacity that would benefit both 3 waters activities and the remaining Council activities that would be available if water was delivered under a CCO model. This also means Council would also still need external financing for our Nature Calls project. In our Long-Term Plan we have identified that Nature Calls could cost at least $1,000 a year for those connected to our water. Under this option, property owners would be paying much more in rates and levies than they do now and investment in non- water activities may need to be reduced due to the borrowing constraints.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s decision on the water services delivery option model, and to set the direction for the development of a WSDP as required under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangement) Act 2024 (PA Act). The WSDP will be brought back to Council in August 2025 for adoption.

1.2 This report considers decisions made by other Councils, assumptions of those yet to make decisions, and community views.

1.3 The modelling work undertaken has demonstrated that a multi-Council WSCCO has more benefits than single Council options.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The delivery of water services in New Zealand is facing significant challenges. Multiple governments have recognised the need for change and improvement by Councils across the country.

2.2 Water reform has been a political feature for the past 5 years. In December 2023, the Government announced Local Water Done Well (LWDW) as a new direction for water services (drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services) policy and legislation.

2.3 Council is familiar with the LWDW reform and has been working through the changes in legislation for some months. Elected Members have been briefed in reports, workshops, regional briefings and drop-in sessions.

2.4 A memo presented to the Sustainability Committee on 16 October 2024 resulted in a recommendation for officers to bring back options that included assessments of the “status quo” and a PNCC standalone model and to consider proportionality of shareholding in a multi-Council WSCCO.

2.5 A full description of the legislative framework, and work undertaken by Council in response to the LWDW programme was outlined in a report ‘Local Water Done Well – Assessment of Options and Consultation process’ which was presented to Council at an Extraordinary Council Meeting on 5 December 2024. This included an overview of the proposed consultation process, and high-level and detailed assessments undertaken.

2.6 Decisions made by Council at the 5 December 2024 meeting included resolution to take three options to consultation:

· Status Quo with changes - an IBU;

· The Four - a multi-Council WSCCO that included PNCC, MDC, Horowhenua District Council (HDC) and KCDC; and

· The up to 6 - a multi-Council WSCCO of the M-W region or any other combination of Councils.

2.7 At the hearings held on 16 April 2025, there was some commentary around the options that a single Council WSCCO was not consulted on as an option. The consultation document contained summary financial projections for the various models considered. The financial modelling for these options assumed access to certain levels of funding in future (primarily through increased borrowing on improved terms from the Local Government Funding Agency).

2.8 On 12 February 2025, Council approved the consultation document and in February and March our community had the opportunity to provide feedback on proposed options as part of consultation process. A robust engagement, communication and marketing approach ensured our community were well informed and had the ability to have their say in a range of ways that suit them. The full summary on our engagement and the themes is outlined in Attachment 1.

2.9 Hearings were held as part of the Sustainability Committee on 16 April as well as the committee receiving an officer memo titled Local Water Done Well – Summary of Submissions.

2.10 Potential governance structures of a WSCCO were discussed in the 5 December 2024 report, see section 10 of that report for further details.

3. what legislation requires of councils

3.1 The PA Act requires Council to prepare, adopt and submit a WSDP to the Secretary for Local Government by 3 September 2025.

3.2 As part of adopting its WSDP, Council is required to consult on its anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services. Council is required to decide which of the models consulted on, for the future delivery of its wastewater, stormwater and drinking water services, will be adopted and in turn included in its WSDP.

3.3 Consultation is mandatory in relation to the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services. However, importantly under the PA Act, consultation is only required once before making any decision in relation to adoption of the WSDP and the proposed model or arrangement for delivering water services. Mandatory consultation must give effect to the consultation requirements in s82 of the Local Government Act.

3.4 Section 82 of the Local Government Act 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. Section 82(4) 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.

3.5 Council’s LWDW consultation document, and engagement process was developed in accordance with the requirements of the PA Act, whilst also aligning with the principles of consultation, prescribed under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3.6 The Minister for Local Government wrote to Council on 21 May 2025 and stated (see Attachment 2 for the full letter):

“I have been clear in my expectation that Council should be working together to address financial sustainability challenges, as you are already actively doing.

In particular, I expect Councils to be actively considering working with and supporting their neighbouring Councils, especially smaller and rural Councils, particularly given there is no requirement for price harmonisation under Local Water Done Well.

As you’ll be aware, collaboration enables resource sharing, efficiency gains, better access to financing, and lower costs for ratepayers. Having a pipeline of future work across a region also provides greater investment certainty, and the potential to build a strong future workforce.”

3.7 The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) undertook financial analysis, on behalf of the four councils, to determine if this option was financially sustainable. The analysis and numbers in this report differ from other models (such as the ML model) due to differing modelling assumptions that apply to each and every financial model. The outcome of all models are similar despite the varying results produced. A copy of this report is provided in Attachment 3. The report highlights that the benefits the size and scale are key factors for the decision regarding water services delivery.

4. context

4.1 All councils in our region have completed their consultations, and a number have made their decisions or are close to making their final decisions based on reported recommendations. We therefore have been able to narrow down the multi-council options available.

4.2 MDC and KCDC both released consultation documents indicating a preference for IBUs to retain control of water services. Their consultation closed 11 April (MDC) and 13 April (KCDC). Both MDC and KCDC community feedback showed that the public was in support of their preferred option.

4.3 MDC confirmed their decision for an IBU on 15 May 2025 and KCDC confirmed their decision for an IBU on 27 May 2025.

4.4 The decisions made by MDC and KCDC confirms that the original Option 1 The Four is no longer a viable option for PNCC.

4.5 Other options included in PNCC’s consultation document included establishing a Multi-Council WSCCO with one or more Councils within the M-W region.

4.6 PNCC’s consultation closed 30 March and HDC consultation closed 10 April. Both PNCC and HDC have received community submissions favouring a collaborative partnership model, suggesting strong local support for the establishment of a multi-Council WSCCO. All Councils have constructively engaged in discussions.

5. Options being considered by other councils in the region

5.1 Whanganui District Council (WDC), Ruapehu District Council (RuaDC) and Rangitīkei District Council (RDC) have been advancing a multi-Council water services model. A partnership between these three Councils was identified as the preferred option in each of their consultation documents. WDC’s consultation closed on 14 April, RuaDC’s on 11 April and RDC’s on 2 April.

5.2 Interest in continuing discussions across the five Councils (PNCC, HDC, WDC, RuaDC, and RDC) was expressed at a cross-Council Elected Members Forum held 8 May and at a subsequent meeting of the Mayors and council Chief Executives. Subsequent decision reports by WDC, RuaDC, and RDC have noted options to work with HDC and PNCC. At the time of writing this report, the opportunity to work with these Councils to explore benefits from including them in any multi-council WSCCO to gain scale is continuing.

(1) RuaDC at their meeting on 21 May agreed to continue working with RDC and WDC and also agreed to progress work on a WSCCO that reaches the 50,000 connection threshold with PNCC and others.

(2) RDC at their meeting on 22 May agreed their preferred position is to work with PNCC and HDC (and RuaDC and WDC if they subsequently agree), with the intent to forming a WSCCO.

5.3 Tararua District Council is exploring partnership with the three Wairarapa councils – Masterton District Council, Carterton District Council and South Wairarapa District Council. This was the preferred option in their consultation documents. Consultation closed for all these by 22 April.

6. National Overview

6.1 Nationally the landscape is mixed. Some councils are opting to retain full control through IBUs, while others are recognising the long-term benefits of working together.

6.2 Some councils (for example, Rotorua and Taupō) are proposing to start with an IBU, and then consider a multi-Council option within 3 to 5 years. There are also examples of councils deciding on an option that was not aligned with community feedback from consultation, such as Selwyn District Council.

6.3 Our neighbouring regions are moving in a collaborative direction. New Plymouth District Council, South Taranaki District Council, Stratford District Council are progressing a Taranaki partnership approach in their consultation documents. In Hawke’s Bay, Napier City Council, Hastings District Council, Central Hawkes Bay District Council and Wairoa District Council are exploring joint models. Note that formal consultation for these districts has not finished yet.

7. analysis of submission on consultation options

7.1 Attachment 4 contains an analysis of consultation feedback raised by submitters. This sets out the arguments made by submitters for and against the specific proposals on which Council was consulting. Submitters also raised a number of additional matters which were not included in the original proposal. Below is a summary of engagement and submissions under each of the option consulted on.

7.2 Between January and February, Council ran an education campaign about LWDW to ensure our community was well informed in the leadup to consultation in February and March. This included a mix of communication channels in person, online and through a range of promotional advertisements.

7.3 The consultation document asked submitters to rank the options from 1 – 3 with 1 being their preferred option and to select their top six values from a list of 11 values.

7.4 During consultation we had a large amount of engagement with our community. This included having stalls at Esplanade Day, Rural Games, Central District Field Days and at the Massey University Open day. We also hosted a pool party at Memorial Park. We presented to community groups and hosted sector sessions for community, environment, water and business. We also held a range of drop-in sessions at community libraries which were well supported.

7.5 Properties received a pamphlet in the mail, our water customers received emails, and there was a range of stakeholder communications. There was also a significant amount of media, social media, website, newspaper and radio promotion.

Submissions on Option 1 – Establish a multi-council WSCCO with four Councils

7.6 Council received clear support for Option 1 ‘The Four’. Most submitters were in favour of this option – 198 of the 291 written submissions received (68%) ranked this as their preferred option.

7.7 Submitters recognised that, of all the options presented, this would be the most affordable in the long term to the community. Submitters noted that scale contributes to affordability and geographically this was well positioned with a number of comments relating to people movements between the areas for work, recreation and family.

7.8 There was some opposition to partnering with KCDC and MDC given they did not have this as their preferred option for consultation.

Submissions on Option 2 – Establish a multi-council WSCCO with one or more councils within the M-W Region

7.9 Community feedback identified Option 2 as the next preferred with 195 of the 291 (67%) submitters identifying this as their second preference.

7.10 Feedback on this option was mixed. Some submitters felt it was difficult to determine affordability due to not having a full understanding of who would be included in a partnership model, however most understood that scale matters.

7.11 Submitters noted that the more councils involved would likely bring complexity to governance structures. 16 submitters were concerned about the different needs of the communities within this option and 31 submitters thought the full geographical area would create too many challenges and therefore was not a realistic option.

7.12 Option 2 and the variations that sit within this option, establish an opportunity for Council to pivot to focus on this. Noting that, Option 2 as it was outlined in the consultation document identified two potential groupings, one of these included MDC which is no longer a consideration.

Submissions on Option 3 – Status Quo with change

7.13 Submitters feedback on this option was very mixed. Submitters could not understand why Council was consulting on this option when it was not legally compliant, which drew criticism from submitters about the central government legislation requiring its inclusion.

7.14 Seventeen submitters asked if changes were made could this option be a possibility. There was some support for the ability to retain control under this option and some submitters queried whether a PNCC standalone WSCCO option would be a possibility.

8. viable options for PNCC

8.1 Decisions by other councils mean that Option 1 ‘The Four’ is no longer a viable option for PNCC. This leaves three main other options:

· Status quo with changes (Option 3 in the consultation document). The most significant issue with this option is that it is not legislatively compliant due to not enabling sufficient ability to borrow for the capital expenditure required and is highly unlikely to meet the financial sustainability requirements under the new legislation.

· PNCC standalone WSCCO (not consulted on). This option lacks the scale of multi-council options, resulting in lower benefits in terms of household charge levels and debt levels.

· Partner with other Councils from within the M-W region to create a multi-Council WSCCO (Option 2 in the consultation document). This was the second preference of submitters and provides sufficient scale to unlock financial benefits for the community.

8.2 There are a number of possible variations under option 2 that could still occur. Over the past couple of years, Council has participated and worked with all of the councils within the M-W region. This work considered multiple scenarios within the participating groups, HDC signalled their intent that this was a preferred model with other councils considering their position. There is the potential for one or more of the following councils in our region to join a multi-Council WSCCO alongside PNCC and HDC:

· RDC

· RuaDC

· WDC.

9. stormwater

9.1 Council’s consultation document outlined the likely future management of its stormwater network. Guidance was issued by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in August 2024 that outlined councils’ ongoing responsibilities for the management of stormwater regardless of the option chosen. The Local Government Water Services Bill due to be enacted in September 2025 will confirm the final detail in relation to stormwater.

9.2 In the 5 December 2024 report to Council, officer advice to Council was that Council should retain ownership of its stormwater assets and contract the WSCCO to deliver services. Officer advice remains the same, noting that potential partners in the WSCCO may have recommended alternative approaches. Many approaches are acceptable under the current draft legislation and further work is to be undertaken with our partners on the options for stormwater.

9.3 The Morrison Low modelling presented includes all three waters. However, whether it is three waters versus two waters won’t impact the outcome of this decision.

9.4 PNCC is currently developing a Stormwater Strategy for the City. The strategy will be designed to provide high-level guidance and direction across Council functions through a broad suite of mechanisms

9.5 The strategy shows the reach of stormwater across many Council functions and reflects the need for careful consideration of how stormwater is considered under any new WSCCO option.

10. assessment of options

Status Quo with changes (an IBU)

10.1 Nothing has changed since the consultation period which would make the Status Quo with changes (an IBU) a viable option. While there would be some benefits in terms of control and no transition costs, this option does not provide access to the borrowing levels needed and is reliant on external financing to fund the Nature Calls project. The revenue required to make this option financially sustainable is significantly higher than all other options.

10.2 Additionally, this option does not allow access to the additional debt capacity that is available by creating a Water Services CCO which would benefit both water and non-water activities. We therefore do not recommend Status Quo with changes as an option.

10.3 Due to the complexities and fixed cost nature of an IFF levy that is required to fund Nature Calls in a status quo option an additional model has been completed to highlight the impact of the IFF levy. The IFF levy by its nature, has a different repayment schedule in comparison to the financial model.

Graph 1: Comparison of PNCC base case and IFF levy

PNCC Standalone WSCCO

10.4 Earlier decisions meant that a PNCC standalone WSCCO option was not included in the consultation document. In December 2024 it was noted that a standalone WSCCO could meet financial sufficiency requirements (assuming it could borrow at 500%) but would not deliver the benefits that come with the scale that multi-council options provided.

10.5 The Local Government Funding Agency has since provided updated guidance on the financial covenants (including debt limits) which will determine the lending available to a WSCCO. The two new covenants are Funds from Operations (FFO) to gross debt and FFO to cash interest coverage. The table below outlines the tiered covenants. It shows that WSCCOs with higher numbers of connections have lower covenants, making it more feasible to borrow more, to finance capital requirements.

Table 1: Impact of connection numbers on capacity to borrow

# Water connections covered by WSCCO	FFO to Cash Interest Coverage Ratio (times)	FFO to Gross Debt Ratio
<5,000	2.0	12%
5,000 – 10,000	2.0	11%
10,000 – 20,000	1.75	10%
20,000 – 50,000	1.5	9%
>50,000	1.5	8%

10.6 A PNCC standalone WSCCO has 31,394 connections meaning that it will need to maintain an FFO to Gross Debt Ratio of at least 9%. Modelling indicates that to meet the financial sustainability requirements, revenue would need to increase significantly and therefore household costs are likely to not be affordable over the long term.

Table 2: PNCC Standalone WSCCO annual household costs at years 10, 20 and 30 (uninflated, excluding GST)

	Year 10 2033/34	Year 20 2043/44	Year 30 2053/54
PNCC Base	$2,790	$2,441	$2,336
PNCC WSCCO	$2,610	$2,000	$1,762
Difference	-$180	-$441	-$574

10.7 Total transition costs to set up a PNCC standalone WSCCO would be lower than other multi-Council WSCCO options, but there is no ability to share these costs. This is also the same for costs related to economic regulation – a PNCC standalone WSCCO would be subject to the same regulations as other multi-council options but will have less scale to spread these over. The range of transition costs is estimated to be between $2.3M and $5.6M depending on the number of Councils included in the WSCCO.

Table 3 below shows the various options and the applicable FFO ratio that is likely to be required.

Table 3: Option Comparison of FFO Ratio’s

	FFO Ratio
PNCC Standalone WSCCO	9%
PNCC & HDC	9%
PNCC, HDC, RuaDC & RDC	8%
PNCC, HDC, RuaDC, RDC & WDC	8%

Multi-Council WSCCO – PNCC & HDC

10.8 Independent modelling identifies that a multi-council WSCCO involving PNCC and HDC would generate $85M of less revenue required compared with the status quo over 30 years.

10.9 This option is expected to generate 7% capital and 7% operating expenditure efficiencies.

10.10 When this entity is first stood up it will be just below the 50,000 connections LGFA requirement for the minimum 8% FFO requirement. This means that at implementation, it will need a minimum FFO ratio of 9%, but under current growth projections it is likely to achieve the 50,000 connections required for the 8% LGFA covenant requirement within the first 10 years.

10.11 Under local pricing (non-harmonised across both Councils), household charges for water services for PNCC are expected to be $117 lower at year 10, $672 at year 20 years, and $675 cheaper at year 30 (all uninflated and exclude GST, and PNCC Base includes $1,000 for an IFF Levy to fund Nature Calls).

Table 4: Two Council local pricing annual household costs at Year 10, 20 and 30 (uninflated, excluding GST)

	Year 10 2033/34	Year 20 2043/44	Year 30 2053/54
PNCC status quo	$2,790	$2,441	$2,336
PNCC as part of 2 Council WSCCO	$2,673	$1,769	$1,661
Difference per annum	-$117	-$672	-$675

Multi-Council WSCCO – additional Councils

10.12 Indicative independent modelling has been undertaken for two combinations of a multi-Council WSCCO beyond a two-council option:

· A 4 Council option with the addition of RDC and RuaDC;

· A 5 Council option with the addition of RDC, RuaDC and WDC.

10.13 The modelling identifies that a multi-Council WSCCO with additional councils would generate between $99M and $370M of less revenue required compared to the status quo over 30 years.

10.14 It is expected to achieve a maximum of 11% capital and 10% operating efficiencies due to scale.

10.15 Under local pricing (non-harmonised across all councils involved), household charges for water services for PNCC as part of a Four Council option are expected to be $100 lower than the base case at year 10, $672 cheaper in price at year 20, and $682 cheaper at year 30. These are all uninflated and exclude GST and the PNCC Base includes an allowance for an IFF levy of $1,000 to fund nature calls.

Table 5: Four Council local pricing annual household costs at Year 10, 20 and 30 (uninflated, excluding GST)

	Year 10 2033/34	Year 20 2043/44	Year 30 2053/54
PNCC Base	$2,790	$2,441	$2,336
PNCC as part of 4 Council WSCCO	$2,690	$1,769	$1,654
Difference per annum	-$100	-$672	-$682

10.16 For the Five Council option under local pricing (non-harmonised across all Councils involved), household charges for water services for PNCC are expected to be $236 lower at year 10, $708 lower at year 20, and $713 cheaper at year 30. These are all uninflated and exclude GST, and the PNCC Base includes an allowance for an IFF levy of $1,000 to fund nature calls.

Table 6: Five Council local pricing annual household costs at Year 10, 20 and 30 (uninflated, excluding GST)

	Year 10 2033/34	Year 20 2043/44	Year 30 2053/54
PNCC Base	$2,790	$2,441	$2,336
PNCC as part of 5 Council WSCCO	$2,554	$1,733	$1,623
Difference	-$236	-$708	-$713

10.17 The following table summarises the household costs between the options outlined above

Table 7: Summary of Household costs by option

	Household costs (uninflated, excluding GST)
	Year 10 2033/34	Year 20 2043/44	Year 30 2053/54
PNCC Base Case (Status Quo LTP + IFF Levy)	$2,790	$2,441	$2,336
PNCC in standalone WSCCO	$2,610	$2,000	$1,762
PNCC in WSCCO with HDC	$2,673	$1,769	$1,654
PNCC in WSCCO with HDC, RDC and RuaDC	$2,690	$1,769	$1,654
PNCC in WSCCO with HDC, RDC, RuaDC & WDC	$2,554	$1,773	$1,623

11. Financial Changes to Council

Stranded Overheads

11.1 Should Council resolve that water services are to be delivered via a WSCCO, there are several changes, financially, to Council’s operating environment. The predominant and largest impacts are stranded overheads as well as Council’s own debt to revenue ratio covenant.

11.2 Stranded overheads are when Council’s activities are reduced, but the functions supporting the organisation do not necessarily reduce. Examples of these functions include payroll, fnance, building costs.

11.3 There can be both direct and indirect overhead costs. A direct overhead cost example is the Microsoft license fee associated with employing that particular staff member and providing them access to PNCC’s IT systems. An indirect overhead cost example is the share of the payroll function costs.

11.4 Direct overhead costs will reduce if the water activities were to be delivered by a WSCCO, but the indirect overhead costs will be reallocated across other activities of Council.

11.5 In the proposed Annual Budget for 2025/26, there are operating overheads in the water activities of circa $5.7M. A portion of these overheads, circa $2.9M, are capitalised as part of the capital programme. The remaining operating overheads will need to be analysed in detail to determine how many of these would be stranded and not able to be reduced or offset.

11.6 For the purpose of assessing the impact on the debt to revenue ratio, the operating portion of the overheads above have been assumed to be stranded and reallocated across the remainder of Council’s activities.

Debt Capacity

11.7 The 2024-34 LTP had debt capacity of $1.063B across the 10 years of the LTP. This includes the additional debt repayment that was required to maintain a debt to revenue ratio that was lower than Council’s self-imposed policy limit of 250%.

11.8 Officers have modelled the proposed Annual Budget 25/26 through the remaining years of the LTP. The updated debt capacity is $0.989B across the 10 years. This reflects the lower revenue in the first two years compared to what was proposed in the LTP.

11.9 Removing the three water activities from Council while allowing for stranded overheads to be reallocated across the remaining activities, the updated debt capacity is $0.916B across the 10 years. The additional debt repayment provisions of $75M in the LTP are not required under this scenario.

11.10 A graph has been included below, showing the Debt to Revenue ratios, based on the three model examples outlined in 11.7 to 11.9 above.

Graph 2: Debt to Revenue ratio result model comparison

11.11 The graph above highlights that from a debt perspective, removing the three water activities from Council will have a significant impact on the debt capacity for the non-water activities.

11.12 The operating revenue is an important aspect of the calculation for the Debt to Revenue ratio. A graph has been included below showing the comparisons of the above models in relation to annual operating revenue.

Graph 3: Annual Operating Revenue model comparison

11.13 At a recent briefing with Elected members, they sought to understand the number of staff that could likely be transferred to a new WSCCO. Under the previous government reform programme and in line with the Staff Transition Guidelines issued, Councils were required to supply information to the National Transition Unit (NTU) on staff that worked across the three waters activities. The table below shows the number of staff based on the percentage of time they work in the water activity. It should be noted that we will be reviewing this information once the number of Council’s and therefore size of the new entity is determined.

Table 6: Number of staff and apportion of time spent in Water Activities

Time spent working in/on the three waters activities	# of staff
100%	94
50%-99%	4
30% - 49%	18
<30%	129
Total	245

12. iwi engagement

12.1 The decision whether to establish a WSCCO is a significant decision in relation to bodies of water, and therefore the Council must consider the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with water.

12.2 Council has continued to engage with Rangitāne both formally and informally to ensure continued transparency of the options being considered by Council.

12.3 A hui for iwi/hapū associated with Council’s preferred option was held at Te Rangimarie on 19 March 2025. The hui was attended by representatives from Rangitāne o Manawatū, Te Ātihau – Raukawa, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki, Muaūpoko Tribal Authority, Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Tūranga, Ngā Hapū o Himatangi and Te Tūmatakahuki.

12.4 In response to this hui, iwi/hapū wrote to their respective council outlining their thoughts and aspirations. See Attachment 5.

12.5 Rangitāne have verbally indicated their support for the establishment of a WSCCO and remain committed to high levels of engagement on this kaupapa moving forward. Rangitāne’s submission indicated that, of all the options presented, Option 1 ‘The Four’ was more favoured than the other options, however also noted genuine concerns from an iwi and hapū perspective how tangata whenua rights would be managed.

12.6 It is recognised that further engagement is needed over the wider area.

13. nature calls and other water-related context

13.1 The Nature Calls Waste-Water Treatment Plant capital programme is included in all modelling on the basis of the current Long-Term Plan assumed at $480M. On 7 May 2025, Council considered the options to take forward for further technical analysis. The range of costs across the options are between $285M - $599M. Note: an option that ranged from $445M - $599M was left in however Elected Members have been clear that the previously resolved $480M cap is not to be breached. Further modelling is provided in Attachment 6.

13.2 Currently the project timeline for the Nature Calls relies on the Wastewater standards being finalised in August 2025. During May – August Iwi engagement and technical development against the final standards will be conducted. Council will aim to agree a shortlist of options in December to take to public consultation between December 2025 and March 2026. Council plans to resolve the selected option to consent in late March 2026.

13.3 Further modelling includes the capture of costs of compliance and regulation that the Council would need to meet under the new water services delivery model. Any decisions relating to Water Services delivery model will not impact the decision on funding for Nature Calls. This would be a decision that is required, at the appropriate time, by either Council or the Board of a Water Services Entity.

14. further financial context

14.1 Assessment of the three options confirms that a multi-Council WSCCO would provide greater financial flexibility in the medium to long term, more effective management of economic and water quality regulations, and enhanced resilience in the face of growth. This model enables response to the legislative change, while simultaneously positioning the Council to maximise partnering and efficiency opportunities as they arise. Under a multi-Council WSCCO model, financing will be available exclusively for the growth and level of service projects of drinking water and wastewater and will not be at risk of changing priorities moving financing to other activities of the Council.

15. recommended option

15.1 A multi-Council WSCCO remains the most viable and feasible option available to Council. It has been assessed as providing greater financial flexibility in the medium to long term, more effective management of economic and water quality regulations, and enhanced resilience in the face of rapid growth. This model enables Council to respond to the legislative change immediately, while simultaneously positioning Council to maximise partnering and efficiency opportunities as they arise.

15.2 HDC has come to the same conclusion, and is recommending that it partners with PNCC and RDC to establish a multi-council WSCCO.

15.3 A number of other councils in our region are still to decide on their water services delivery options. There is the potential for one or more of WDC, or RuaDC to decide to join any multi-council WSCCO were it to be established by PNCC and HDC (if that is the agreed direction). Because these combinations were effectively covered by Option 2 ‘Up to Six’ in the consultation document, our view is that they meet the consultation requirements under the PA Act.

15.4 Because neither the Status Quo with changes or PNCC Standalone WSCCO options are financially sustainable and do not generate the levels of benefits that come with a multi-council WSCCO), these are not recommended options.

16. Next actions

16.1 The following steps are required to ensure the successful development and implementation of the LWDW programme:

(1) WSDP development. A WSDP will be developed on the basis of the Council decision on delivery model. The WSDP will be brought to Council in August 2025 for adoption, and the Chief Executive will be required to certify the WSDP prior to lodgement to the Secretary for Local Government for approval by 3 September 2025. The Secretary for Local Government can only accept a WSDP if it complies with the Act. Once the WSDP is submitted to the DIA for approval, amendments to the WSDP may be required should the Department propose changes to ensure the WSDP aligns with the Act.

(2) Long Term Plan Impact. If approved, the timing of the Water Services entity being operational is going to coincide with the next Long Term Plan period. The 2027-37 LTP will be prepared without the Water Activities included.

(3) Transition agreement. Once other councils have determined their option, chief executives will work with other councils to agree a transition agreement and begin drafting foundational documents, this will allow for guidance to elected members of potential costs as well as a range of other governance matters. If there are any significant variations to the options presented in our consultation document, the Chief Executive will bring back a paper for further consideration.

(4) Implementation Plan. Develop and complete the implementation plan for submission by 3 September. The objectives and key principles of the implementation plan will be included in the August report.

(5) Elected Member updates on how our neighbours are progressing and decisions made.

17. Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		Yes
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		Yes
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 objectives are: Provide safe and readily-available water Manage city wastewater
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Water services have undergone significant reform in the past few years. The National-led Government has repealed the previous government’s Three Waters programme and replaced it with ‘Local Water Done Well’. The Government is still working through the details of what this reform involves, but it does include local government keeping ownership of water assets. Councils are encouraged to form regional groupings (to get the benefits of size) and Water Services Council-Controlled Organisations (to be able to borrow funds without affecting Council balance sheets).

Attachments

1.	Engagement, Marketing and Communications Summary ⇩
2.	Letter from Minister Watts to Councils - May 2025 ⇩
3.	DIA Financial Analysis - Local Water Done Well ⇩
4.	Local Water Done Well - Summary of Submissions ⇩
5.	Letter to PNCC from Iwi/Hapu ⇩

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 4 June 2025

TITLE: Te Motu o Poutoa Governance and Management Structure Options: Summary of submissions, including hearings

PRESENTED BY: Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager Parks and Reserves
Cameron McKay, General Manager, Corporate Services

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council agree to the establishment of a Jointly Governed Council-Controlled Organisation, governed by Council and Rangitāne o Manawatū for the Te Motu o Poutoa civic marae and cultural centre, subject to Council confirming ongoing funding in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

2. That Council note the following steps are required before the new Jointly Governed Council Controlled Organisation commences operations:

· Proposed establishment costs and processes, including relevant entity agreements such as a shareholders agreement or trust deed.

· A Statement of Expectation agreed by Council

· A Statement of Intent agreed upon between the Board and the Shareholders, outlining the specific objectives, clear roles and responsibilities for the Council-Controlled Organisation, including Council and Rangitāne o Manawatū roles in monitoring and accountability

· Appointment of Board members

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Council is carrying out requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 to consult, and consider submissions, on the proposed governance and management structure for a civic marae and cultural centre at Te Motu o Poutoa - Anzac Park.

1.2 This report summarises the written/ online and oral submissions received.

1.3 Council is now to deliberate and decide on the governance model for the future Te Motu o Poutoa civic marae and cultural centre.

2. BAckground

2.1 In June 2024 Council approved the inclusion of the Te Motu o Poutoa civic marae and cultural centre project, in partnership with Rangitāne o Manawatū, in the 2024 – 2034 Long Term Plan. As part of this project Council needs to determine the governance and management structure for the future facility.

2.2 Council consulted with the community on four governance and management options, stating its preferred option of a jointly governed Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) by Council and Rangitāne o Manawatū.

2.3 Rangitāne o Manawatū supports Council’s preferred option.

3. ConsulTation process

3.1 The consultation period opened on 17 March 2025 and closed on 17 April 2025. The consultation consisted of:

· Online consultation and online submission form as part of the 2025/26 Annual Plan consultation process,

· An offer to meet with Te Manawa and the Central Economic Development Agency,

· Statement of Proposal and supporting information at the libraries and service centres.

Hearings were held on 30April 2025 and three parties spoke to their submissions.

4. summary of submissions

4.1 121 submissions were received during the month-long consultation period, 117 online submissions and 4 hard copy.

4.2 Seven submissions were excluded for various reasons – including using a pseudonym, false email address, double up submissions from the same person and the use of offensive language.

4.3 Council sought submissions on the proposed governance and management structure for the Te Motu o Poutoa civic marae and cultural centre, however many submissions were written in opposition to the project itself, rather than a submission on the governance and management structure.

4.4 Figure 1 and Table 1 provide an overview of support or opposition to the proposal and the reasons given by submitters.

Figure 1: Support and non-support for the proposed options

4.5 113 submitters answered yes or no to the question on their preferred option. One submission did not select an option but opposed the project itself in the text of the submission. That submission was counted in the “No option supported” in Figure 1.

4.6 Overall, 48% of submitters supported the preferred option, 29% preferred another option and 23% opposed the project.

4.7 The 33 submissions (29%) that selected another option commented that they were opposed to the project and did not want Council rates spent on it. These submissions have been broken down in Table 1.

Table 1 – Number of submissions for alternative options and opposition to the project

	Opposed to Council investing in the project	Not specifically opposed to the project or not stated	Total Submissions
Fully owned and managed by Rangitāne o Manawatū	9	10	19
Fully owned and managed by Council (Parks and Reserves)	5	6	11
Managed by Te Manawa on behalf of Council	2	1	3
Total	16	17	33

4.8 In addition, there were two submissions that specifically wanted to defer the project but were not opposed. One of these specifically referred to debt levels needing to be lower before proceeding with the project.

4.9 The consultation was focused on the governance options for the Te Motu o Poutoa civic marae and cultural centre. Of the 72 submissions that did not oppose the project itself, a large majority (55 – 76%) supported the Council preferred option. This compares to 14% supporting ‘fully owned and managed by Rangitāne o Manawatū’, 8% supporting ‘fully owned and managed by Council (Parks and Reserves)’ and 1% supporting ‘managed by Te Manawa on behalf of Council’.

4.10 Reasons for support focused on the partnership with Rangitāne o Manawatū and the benefits of the facility. Reasons for opposition were mainly opposition to the project itself due to the impact on rates; that Council should not be helping to fund the project and Rangitāne o Manawatū should fund it; and a few comments preferring that Council or Te Manawa should be the structure selected.

4.11 Table 2 summarises the level of support for each of the four governance options, and opposition to the project itself, across the 114 submissions received.

Table 2: The four governance options and opposition to the project

Option Selected	Total Number	Council should not fund project at this time
Preferred Option – Jointly governed CCO by Council and Rangitāne o Manawatū	55	2
Preferred option not supported	59	49
Of which
Fully owned and managed by Council	11	6
Fully owned and managed by Rangitāne o Manawatū	19	16
Managed by Te Manawa on behalf of Council	3	2
No option supported	26	25
Total opposition to Council funding this project		49

4.12 Most of the submissions that selected options other than the preferred option were opposed to the project itself. Of the 59 submissions that stated that they opposed the preferred option for the governance and management of the facility, 42 commented that the project itself should be halted or that Rangitāne o Manawatū should pay for all of it.

Two submissions in favour of the preferred option opposed the project proceeding at this time.

Table 3: Comments- Reasons given for support or opposition

Reasons for supporting the proposal	Number
Commend Council on Partnership / best option / keep doing good work / brings people together / aspirations of iwi	18
Excited by project / cultural attractions for the City / great for community / great for all	11
Best option for funding and Rangitāne involvement / proven track record	4
Other positive comments (single comments)	3
Reasons for opposing the proposal	Number
Cost to high / nice to have / spend on something else / waste of $ / rates too high / 3 waters / Core / wrong time - tough times	41
Rangitāne fund this if they want it /use their treaty settlements	14
Rates should be spent on benefits for all ratepayers	6
City has enough facilities like this / will not get enough visitors	6
Stop favouring Maori	6
Council does not listen to submissions / ratepayers	4
Previously opposed in LTP process	3
If Rangitāne run it they should pay for it	3
Too risky and governance inequity / 50% governance = 50% funding	2
Other negative comments (single comments)	6
Neutral Comments
Café needs to be good / needs accessibility / public transport	3
Design needs to include good stormwater treatment	2
Should have more CCOs across Council to attract investment	1
Run community and business events / café by Council to reduce rates opex input	1

5. Hearings

5.1 Council hearings of the submissions were held on 30April 2025. There were five submitters who wished to be heard. Two of these submitters subsequently indicated that were not attending the hearings. A few other Annual Plan submitters referred to the project itself around affordability and the need for the external funding.

5.2 Three people spoke at the hearings - Rangitāne o Manawatū (#105), Peter Butler (#22) and Sarah Sandgathe (#18).

5.3 Debbie Te Puni on behalf of Rangitāne o Manawatū spoke in support of the preferred option and highlighted the following points:

· Te Motu o Poutoa is a sacred site and the heartbeat of Rangitāne o Manawatū,

· Partnership is not just symbolic and requires shared responsibility,

· Will take time and effort to weave together a future,

· Forward together bold and respectful.

5.4 Peter Butler emphasised that the governance of the site should be iwi led and therefore should be fully governed by Rangitāne o Manawatū. After questions he agreed that the actual operations of the Te Motu o Poutoa civic marae and cultural centre should be jointly governed.

5.5 Sarah Sandgathe requested small changes in the notified design of the Te Motu o Poutoa Cultural Park Civic Marae with the aim of making it best practice in terms of stormwater design, including more natural elements to reduce awa pollution.

6. Next Steps

6.1 Council confirms the preferred option as the governance and management structure of the future Te Motu o Poutoa civic marae and cultural centre.

6.2 There are several steps required as part of the establishment process for a new joint CCO. The Board will need to be appointed by Council and Rangitāne o Manawatū.

6.3 Officers will prepare a draft Statement of Expectations for consideration by Council - under the Local Government Act, Council is required to develop a Statement of Expectations outlining the CCO's specific objectives.

6.4 If Council adopted one of the other governance options, then the process would differ but would likely still require agreement on objectives, timing and governance budgets.

7. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		Yes
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		Yes
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		Yes
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 2: He tāone whakaihiihi, tapatapahi ana Goal 2: A creative and exciting city Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 11. Mahere mō te kanorau koiora me Te Awa o Manawatū 11. Biodiversity and the Manawatū River Plan The objective is: Encourage and enable the community’s connection with the Manawatū River Action: Develop Te Motu o Poutoa
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	· Council will work in partnership with Rangitāne. · Respect and enhance the Mauri of the Manawatū River. · The Manawatū River Framework states ‘to identify and appropriately develop Rangitāne sites of cultural and historical significance’. This site was identified for development and management planning.

Attachments

Nil

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 4 June 2025

TITLE: Council Work Schedule

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated 4 June 2025

COUNCIL WORK SCHEDULE 4 June 2025

#	Estimated Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause
1	~~4 June~~ 6 August	Options for property on Ruahine Street	GM Infrastructure		5 February Clause 14-25
	~~4 June 2025~~	~~Adoption of Fees and Charges~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~		~~12 February~~ ~~Clause 20.3-25~~
	~~4 June 2025~~	~~Adopt Annual Plan 2025-26~~	~~Chief Executive~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
	~~4 June 2025~~	~~Deliberations- Te Motu o Poutoa Civic Marae: Governance Structure~~	~~GM Infrastructure~~		~~5 March 2025~~ ~~Clause 33-25~~
	~~4 June 2025~~	~~Deliberations- Local Water Done Well Options~~	~~GM Infrastructure~~		~~12 Feb 2025~~ ~~Clause 18-25~~
	~~4 June 2025~~	~~Set the Rates for 2025-26~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
	~~4 June 2025~~	~~Approve Borrowing for 2025-26~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
2	~~25 June~~ 10 Dec 2025	Nature Calls – Shortlist Options and Public Engagement	GM Infrastructure		Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.11 -25 (rec 2)
3	25 June 2025	Quarter 3 – Economic Update	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Economic Growth
4	6 August 2025	Approve LWDW - Water Services Delivery Plan	Chief Executive		12 Feb 2025 Clause 18-25
5	25 June 2025	Effectiveness of Civics Education Initiatives – Annual progress report	GM Customer & Community		29 May 2024 Clause 95.29 -24
6	~~6 August~~ 1 April 2026	Agree revised BPO – Nature Calls	GM Infrastructure		Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.11 -25 (rec 2)
7	6 August 2025	Review of CEDA Directors Policy	GM Corporate Services		2 Oct 2024 Clause 172
8	6 August 2025	Report back on Investment Options for PN Airport.	GM Corporate Services		6 December 2023 Clause 197-23
9	6 August 2025	Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan Steering Group – 6-monthly update	GM Strategic Planning		Terms of Reference
10	6 August 2025	Appointment of Trustees on Council Controlled Organisations	GM Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
11	3 Sept 2025	Review of PNCC Appointment of Directors Policy.	GM Corporate Services		2 Oct 2024 Clause 172
12	8 Oct 2025	Residents Survey – Action Plan	GM Strategic Planning		Terms of Reference
13	8 Oct 2025	Adopt Annual Report 2024-25	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
14	8 Oct 2025	Low Carbon Fund Allocations 2024/25	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Sustainability Committee	21 August 2024 Clause 24-24
15	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
16	8 Oct 2025	Citywide Emissions Inventory 2024 Annual Report	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Sustainability Committee	Climate Change Plan Action 3
17	8 Oct 2025	PNCC Organisational Emissions Inventory 2024/25 Annual Report	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Sustainability Committee	Climate Change Plan Action 1
18	TBC	Summerhays Reports – Partnership Models Expressions of Interest	GM Infrastructure	Lying on the Table	1 May 2024 Clause 66-24 and 74 -24

Proactive Release of Confidential Decisions

Date of meeting	Report Title	Released	Withheld
1 May 2024	Whakarongo Land Swap with Summerset Retirement Village	Report, Resolution and Division	N/A
11 Dec 2024	Development Agreements with Summerset Villages (Kelvin Grove) Limited and The Colonial Motor Company Limited	Report (redacted), Resolution and Division	Attachments
5 Feb 2025	Sale and Purchase of Property on Ruahine Street	Report, Resolution and Division	N/A
5 March 2025	Renewal of Streetlight and street sweeping component of road maintenance contract	Report (redacted), Resolution and Division	Attachment

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

	Revenue ($m)	Expenses ($m)	Net cost ($m)	Percentage recovery
Private	1.753	1.970	0.217	89%
Public	0	1.696	1.696	0%
Total	1.753	3.666	1.913	48%

1.	Submissions on Planning & Miscellaneous fees ⇩
2.	Planning Charges for 2025/26 ⇩
3.	Miscellaneous Charges 2025/26 ⇩
4.	Trade Waste Charges for 2025/26 ⇩