Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 8 October 2025

Council MEETING

8 October 2025

Order of Business

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

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

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

4. Declarations of Interest (if any)

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

5. Public Comment

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

6. Acknowledgement of Service - Councillor Pat Handcock

7. Confirmation of Minutes Page 9

That the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 3 September 2025 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Reports

8. Adoption of the Annual Report 2024/25 Page 21

Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager Finance and Debbie Perera, Audit Director.

9. Palmerston North Airport Limited - Annual report for 12 months ended 30 June 2025 & Instructions relating to Annual Meeting Page 25

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

10. Palmerston North Airport Ltd - Statement of Expectations 2026/27-2028/29 Page 137

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

11. Deliberations advice - proposed Linklater Reserve on-leash dog control area Page 145

Report, presented by Stacey Solomon, Policy Analyst.

12. Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road - Accelerated Project Timeline Page 243

Memorandum, presented by James Miguel, Senior Transport Planner.

13. Aokautere Business Case: Funding Options Page 249

Report, presented by James Miguel, Senior Transport Planner and Waheed Ahmed, Principal Transport Planner Operations.

14. PNCC Organisational Emissions Inventory 2024/2025 Annual Report Page 255

Memorandum, presented by Sabrina Hinchey, Climate Change and Sustainability Analyst.

15. Citywide Emissions Inventory 2024 Annual Report Page 265

Memorandum, presented by Sabrina Hinchey, Climate Change and Sustainability Analyst.

16. Low Carbon Fund Allocations 2024/25 Page 271

Memorandum, presented by David Watson, Senior Climate Change Advisor.

17. Local Government (Systems Improvement) Amendment Bill and Online Gambling: Submissions Approved Under Mayoral Delegation Page 277

Memorandum, presented by Grace Nock, Manager - Organisational Planning and Performance.

18. Elected Members' Meeting Attendance Statistics - 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 Page 287

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White - Manager Governance.

19. Continuation of appointment of Dog Control Act 1996 Hearing Panel Page 291

Memorandum, presented by Desiree Viggars, Manager Legal, Risk and Assurance/Legal Counsel.

20. Council Work Schedule Page 293

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

21. Presentation of the Part I Public Culture & Sport Committee Recommendations from its 10 September 2025 Meeting Page 297

22. Karakia Whakamutunga

23. Exclusion of Public

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
24.	Confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 3 September 2025 Part II Confidential	For the reasons set out in the Council meeting of 3 September 2025, held in public.
25.	Part IIB - Chief Executive Performance Review.	Privacy of the individual in regards to their employee performance outweighs public interest	s7(2)(a)PRIVACY This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive
26.	Environmental Health Contract Update	Allows Council to negotiate in good faith and to get good value from contract.	s7(2)(b)(ii)THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position and s7(2)(h)COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: This information needs to be kept confidential to allow Council to engage in commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage
27.	Wyndham Street Upgrade - Programme Budget and Tender Award	Agreeing the tender confidentially allows Council to get best value for these public works.	s7(2)(b)(ii)THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position and s7(2)(i)NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings
28.	Trustee Appointment to Te Manawa Museums Trust Board	The candidate's right to privacy outweighs the public’s interest to know who has applied to the Te Manawa Trust Board until the appointment has been confirmed.	s7(2)(a)PRIVACY This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive
29.	Civic Honours Awards 2025	Allows for appropriate preparation of awards ceremony in that affected individuals can share news with family prior to media announcement.	s7(2)(a)PRIVACY This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive
30.	Proposal to grant initial licence and easements to Meridian Energy - Turitea Reserve	It is to the greater public interest that Council acts in confidence at this stage of the negotiations.	s7(2)(b)(ii)THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position, s7(2)(c)(i)PREJUDICE THE SUPPLY OF SIMILAR INFORMATION: Releasing this information could negatively effect similar confidential information or discourage people from sharing such information, s7(2)(i)NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings and s7(2)(j)PREVENT IMPROPER GAIN OR ADVANTAGE: This information needs to be kept confidential to prevent its improper use for personal gain or advantage.

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.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

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 03 September 2025, commencing at 9.02am

Members

Present:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (in the Chair) 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, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Members Present Online:

Councillor Billy Meehan.

Apologies:

Councillor Billy Meehan (early departure).

Councillor Orphée Mickalad was not present when the meeting resumed at 10.46am. He entered the meeting again at 10.48am after the consideration of clause 134-25. He was not present for clause 134-25.

Councillor Billy Meehan was not present when the meeting resumed at 1.33pm. He was not present for clauses 141-25 to 150-25.

Councillor Roly Fitzgerald left the meeting at 2.40pm during consideration of clause 142-25, and returned to the meeting at 2.43pm after clause 142-25. He left the meeting at 3.24pm at the end of the public part of the meeting. He was not present for clauses 142-25, and 148-25 to 150-25.

Councillor Mark Arnott left the meeting at 3.17pm during consideration of clause 145-25 and returned to the meeting at 3.20pm after clause 145-25. He was not present for clause 145-25.

Councillor Lew Findlay left the meeting at 4.44pm. He was not present for clauses 148-25 to 150-25.

Karakia Timatanga

Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb opened the meeting with karakia.

131-25

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the apologies.

Clause 131-25 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.

	Declarations of Interest
	Councillor William Wood declared a conflict in Item 26 Purchase Opportunity – Mobile Stage (clause 150-25) and took no part in discussion or debate.

	Tribute: Steve Stannard
	The Mayor made a tribute to Steve Stannard, Civic Award recipient, founding head of Massey University’s School of Sport and Exercise Science and local cycling advocate, who passed away on 30 August 2025.

132-25

Public Comment

Amy Walters, Greg Sawyer, Georgia Wheeler and Connor Taylor, representing Kiwi Canoe Polo, made public comment in support of Item 9 Notice of Motion: Kiwi Canoe Polo Next Stage Support.

Rami Al-Jiab made public comment in support of Item 6 Petition - Call for an Immediate, Permanent Ceasefire in Gaza and an Ethical Procurement and Investment Policy.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the public comments.

Clause 132-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

133-25	Petition - Call for an Immediate, Permanent Ceasefire in Gaza and an Ethical Procurement and Investment Policy Presentation, by Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab, Vivienne Porzsolt, Thyme4Action and Hazim Arafeh, Former President of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand. The Mayor moved a motion in support of a ceasefire in Gaza, and offered to donate $2,000 from the Mayoral Relief Fund to the Red Cross. Councillor Bowen moved a motion to review the Council’s procurement and investment policies to avoid contracts with companies complicit with breaches of international law. A report with suggested changes and the implications of any changes to these policies would be brought back to Council.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council receive the petition for information.
	Clause 133-25 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 Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 2. That Council will support an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, with the Mayor urgently writing to the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister advocating for such. The Mayoral Relief Fund will also donate $2,000 to Red Cross International towards urgent humanitarian efforts in Gaza.
	Clause 133-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Kaydee Zabelin. RESOLVED 3. That Council amend our procurement and investment policies to avoid contracts with companies complicit in grave breaches of international law, including those profiting from illegal Israeli settlements and occupation — consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2334, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and recent UN Special Rapporteur findings; noting that if necessary Council may develop a practical transition plan for policy implementation.
	Clause 133-25 above was carried 13 votes to 2, with 1 abstention, 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, Karen Naylor and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Orphée Mickalad and William Wood. Abstained: Councillor Billy Meehan.

The meeting adjourned at 10.22am.

The meeting resumed at 10.46am.

Councillor Orphée Mickalad was not present when the meeting resumed.

134-25

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the ordinary Council meeting of 6 August 2025 Part I Public and Part II Confidential be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 134-25 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, 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, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Abstained:

Councillor Patrick Handcock.

Councillor Orphée Mickalad entered the meeting again at 10.48am.

135-25

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the extraordinary Council meeting of 13 August 2025 Part I Public and Part II Confidential be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 135-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb.

136-25	Officer Response to Notice of Motion - Next stage support to Manawatū Kiwi Canoe Polo Club to carry out a Feasibility Study/Business Case and Notice of Motion: Kiwi Canoe Polo Next Stage Support Memorandum, presented by Ann-Marie Mori, Policy Analyst. Notice of Motion, presented by Councillor Leonie Hapeta. An amendment was passed referring the request to the Annual Budget 2026/27 to ensure all community funding requests are considered together.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council receive the memo titled ‘Response to Notice of Motion - Next stage support to Manawatū Kiwi Canoe Polo Club to carry out a Feasibility Study/Business Case’.
	Clause 136-25 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 Leonie Hapeta, seconded William Wood. RESOLVED 2. That Council refer to the Annual Budget 2026/27 consideration of a grant of $10,000 to Kiwi Canoe Polo for the purpose of developing a combined feasibility study and business case for a new Canoe Polo facility, to inform the 2027-2037 Long-Term Plan.
	Clause Error! Reference source not found. above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Patrick Handcock. Note: On an amendment: ‘That Council, refer to the Annual Budget 2026/27 consideration of a grant of $10,000 to Kiwi Canoe Polo for the purpose of developing a combined feasibility study and business case for a new Canoe Polo facility, to inform the 2027-2037 Long-Term Plan’, the motion was carried 9 votes to 7, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan and William Wood.

Reports

137-25

Fitzherbert Park - Proposal to Grant an Easement on Reserve Land to Powerco

Report, presented by Perene Green, Property Officer.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve notifying the public of the proposal to grant an easement at Fitzherbert Park, 272 Fitzherbert Avenue Palmerston North, to Powerco to convey electricity, using the process set out in Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2. That Council note that the land area affected by the easement for Powerco is described as Lot 2 DP 77988.

Clause 137-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

138-25

2025/26 Remuneration Budget Update

Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager Finance and Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council increase the remuneration budget for 2025/26 by $100,000 to allow for increasing KiwiSaver contribution rates from 1 April 2026.

2. That Council increase the following budgets to fund the Executive Director role for the implementation of the Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation, noting that this is cost neutral:

a. Remuneration Expenditure budget increase of $250,000

b. Government Operating Grant revenue budget increase of $250,000.

3. That Council note the remuneration budget for 2025/26 may need to increase if the work on the Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation impacts existing workloads.

Clause 138-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

139-25

Clearview Reserve - Request to reinstate 2025/26 capital budget

Memorandum, presented by Kathy Dever-Tod - Manager Parks and Reserves.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council revoke clause 80.13-25

b. Deferring Programme 1853 - Development of existing reserves ($85K) to the 2026/2027 Annual Budget;

2. That Council agree to bring forward Programme 1853 - Development of existing reserves ($85K) from the 2026/27 to the 2025/2026 financial year, in order to develop Clearview Reserve in 2025/26 in line with commitments made at the time of the related subdivision consents.

Clause 139-25 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 12.26pm.

The meeting resumed at 1.33pm.

Councillor Billy Meehan was not present when the meeting resumed at 1.33pm.

140-25	Review of the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA) Appointment of Directors Policy. Memorandum, presented by Sarah Claridge, Governance Advisor.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 1. That Council adopt the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA) Appointment of Directors Policy 2025 (Attachment 1), as recommended by the Electoral College.
	Clause 140-25 above was carried 11 votes to 4, 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, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad and Karen Naylor.
	Note: Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Orphée Mickalad. On an amendment that: That Council adopt the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA) Appointment of Directors Policy 2025 (Attachment 1), subject to the deletion of section 3.8 ~~as recommended by the Electoral College~~. The amendment was lost 5 votes to 10, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad and Karen Naylor. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

141-25

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 - Progress Report

Memorandum, presented by Natasha Hickmott - Acting Resource Recovery Manager.

Councillor Roly Fitzgerald left the meeting at 2:40pm

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That the Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 - Progress Report’ presented to Council on 3 September 2025.

Clause 141-25 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, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Councillor Roly Fitzgerald returned to the meeting at 2.43pm

142-25

Civic and Cultural Precinct: 6 Month Update

Memorandum, presented by Glenn Bunny, Manager Property.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the report titled ‘Civic and Cultural Precinct: 6 Month Update’, presented on 3 September 2025.

Clause 142-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

143-25

Annual Section 10A Dog Control Report 2024/25

Memorandum, presented by Angela Lumby, Manager Environmental Protection.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive the report titled ‘Annual Section 10A Dog Control Report 2024/2025’ presented on 3 September 2025.

Clause 143-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

144-25

Council Work Schedule

Councillor Mark Arnott left the meeting at 3:17pm

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated 3 September 2025.

Clause 144-25 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Councillor Mark Arnott returned to the meeting at 3:20pm

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

145-25		Strategy & Finance Committee Part I Public - 20 August 2025 Councillor Vaughan Dennison presented the recommendations below:
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor. RESOLVED 1. That Council adopt the recommendations from the Strategy & Finance Committee of 20 August 2025: Quarterly Performance and Financial Report – period ending 30 June 2025 (clause 29-25) Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager – Finance and John Aitken, Manager - Project Management Office. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 4. That Council approve the adjustments to carry forward values per the carry forward report in Attachment 5. 5. That Council approve the deferral of $4,330,799 from 2025/26 to 2026/27 for Programme 1895 – Te Motu o Poutoa Development as noted in Attachment 5.
	Clause 145-25 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, 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, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Abstained: Councillor Rachel Bowen.

Exclusion of Public

146-25

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

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

General subject of each matter to be considered		Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
24.	Land purchases for the purpose of Te Utanganui, Central New Zealand Distribution Hub	s7(2)(i)NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings
25.	Environmental Health Contract Update	s7(2)(b)(ii)THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position and s7(2)(h)COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: This information needs to be kept confidential to allow Council to engage in commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage
26.	Purchase Opportunity - Mobile Stage	s7(2)(b)(ii)THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position and s7(2)(i)NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings
27.	Part IIB - Chief Executive Performance Review.	s7(2)(a)PRIVACY This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive

Clause 146-25 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Councillor Roly Fitzgerald left the meeting at 3.24pm

The public part of the meeting finished at 3.24pm

Confirmed 8 October 2025

Mayor

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 8 October 2025

TITLE: Palmerston North Airport Limited - Annual report for 12 months ended 30 June 2025 & Instructions relating to Annual Meeting

Presented By: Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL

1. That Council receive the Annual Report and Financial Statements of Palmerston North Airport Limited for the year ended 30 June 2025.

2. That the Council Shareholder Representative (the Mayor) be instructed to support the proposed resolutions (listed in section 2.9) to be considered at the Annual meeting of Palmerston North Airport Limited to be conducted by way of resolution in writing.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Palmerston North Airport Ltd (PNAL) as a Council-Controlled Trading Organisation has prepared its Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2025. This report provides a brief commentary on PNAL’s results for the year and recommends the Council’s shareholder representative be instructed to support the resolutions proposed for the Annual Meeting.

1.2 Company representatives will be available at the meeting to respond to any questions.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 PNAL’s Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2025 is attached. The report gives a comprehensive assessment of company performance with key matters highlighted in the joint report of the Chair and Chief Executive. Performance is evaluated against the Statement of Intent agreed by the Council in June 2024.

2.2 PNAL’s interim report to 31 December 2024 was considered during April 2025. That report outlined PNAL had met its key performance targets for the 6 months apart from passenger numbers, which although higher than the previous year, were below the SOI expectation. Caution was expressed about the prospects for the rest of the year given market changes.

2.3 Operating results for the year are summarised in the following table:

Table 1 Operating Results

Actual 2022/23	Actual 2023/24		Actual 2024/25	Budget 2024/25 SOI
12,585,130	15,487,238	Revenue	16,954,928	17,777,234
6,482,263	7,946,586	Operating Expenditure (incl. PFAS related extra-ordinary items)	9,344,889	11,178,405
6,102,867	7,540,652	Operating Surplus (before interest, depreciation & tax)	7,610,039	6,598,829
2,173,143 594,399 (261,348) 0	2,192,583 523,481 349,303 5,046,062	Depreciation & Amortisation^{^[1]} Finance Costs Loss (gain) on sale of assets Assets vested to Council	7,040,294 576,640 110,101 0	8,000,482 1,177,678 0 0
415,741	(70,500)	Revaluation (loss)/gain – Investment properties	507,200	0
4,012,414	(641,277)	Net Surplus/(deficit) (before tax)	390,204	(2,579,331)
1,061,993	1,617,739	Taxation	32,143	(722,212)
2,950,421	(2,259,016)	Net Surplus/(deficit) after tax for year	358,061	(1,857,119)

2.4 A selection of PNAL’s results, compared with the targets set in the Statement of Intent are shown in Table 2 below. A more detailed explanation of performance against a wider range of objectives is shown in pages 44-49 of PNAL’s report.

Table 2 – Results compared with targets set in Statement of Intent

Actual 2023/24		Actual 2024/25	SOI Target
7%	Surplus, before interest/tax/depreciation/ revaluations to Total Assets	7%	5%
-2.8%	Surplus, after interest/tax/revaluations to Shareholders’ funds	0%	(2)%
14.4	Surplus, before interest & tax to Interest ≥ 2.5: 1	13.2	5.6
$82.1m	Tangible net worth (total tangible assets minus total liabilities) ≥ $80m	$84.5m	$83.6m
78%	Ratio of consolidated shareholders’ funds to total assets ≥ 40%	77%	63%
$10.7m	Total Debt	$13.3m	$34.6m
13%	Debt to Equity ratio	14%	29%
1.3	Net Debt*/EBITDA (<4.5)	1.7	5.2
57%	Funds from Operations (FFO**)/Net Debt (long term target > 11%)	52.9%	17.8%
45	Maintain a Net Promotor score of 45 or above, measured on an annual basis	42	45
547,721	No. of passengers served through airport terminal	531,129	559,400
Zero	Achieve zero lost time injuries to those who work within our airport community	Zero	Zero
Maintained	Maintain Civil Aviation Rule part 139 certification	Maintained	Maintain
Achieved	Achieve Airport Carbon Accreditation level 4	Maintained	Maintain

*Net Debt equals total borrowings less cash on hand **FFO equals EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation & amortisation) less interest cash

2.5 The Company applied $10.2m during the year to the purchase of fixed assets ($4.7m in the previous year). This compares with the budgetary provision for capital expenditure of $31.7m.

2.6 The Annual Report advises that a dividend of $300k is planned. This is consistent with the expectations contained in the Statement of Intent.

2.7 The Company’s ratio of shareholders’ funds to total assets as at 30 June 2025 was 77:23 (78:22 at 30 June 2024).

Annual Meeting of Shareholders

2.8 The Company must hold an Annual Meeting of shareholders within six months of its balance date i.e. no later than 31 December 2025. As the Council is the sole shareholder it is planned (as usual) to hold the Annual Meeting by way of entry in the minute book rather than to hold a physical meeting.

2.9 The Annual Meeting (by way of entry in the minute book) will have resolutions (as attached) covering the following:

2.9.1 Receipt of the Annual Report and financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2025.

2.9.2 Advice the directors propose that a dividend of $300k be payable for the year ended 30 June 2025.

2.9.3 Approving the total remuneration of directors being $157,746 for five directors.

2.9.4 Recording the reappointment of the Auditor General as auditor and to authorise the directors to fix the remuneration of the auditors.

Directors’ Fees

2.10 In December 2024 the Council agreed that total remuneration for the directors for five directors would be $153,500 for 2024/25 year.

2.11 In April 2024 Council approved an amendment to the Appointment of Directors Policy that says the remuneration of CCO board members will be adjusted annually by the Labour Cost Index (Public Sector Managers), December quarter.

2.12 The index for the December 2024 quarter was 2.9% and applying this brings the directors’ fees for the year to $157,746.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 PNAL’s Annual Report will be published on the Company’s and Council’s websites.

3.2 In June 2025 the Economic Growth Committee agreed to PNAL’s Statement of Intent for 2025/26 to 2027/28. The next update on performance will be in the interim report for the period to 31 December 2025 that will be provided early in 2026.

3.3 A Statement of Expectations setting out Council’s expectations of PNAL for the 2026/27-2028/29 period will be reported in a separate report to the Council. This will inform PNAL’s draft Statement of Intent for 2026/27 which is due by the end of February 2026.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 1: He tāone auaha, he tāone tiputipu Goal 1: An innovative and growing city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 2. Mahere whakawhanake ohaoha 2. Economic Development Plan The objective is: operating a key gateway for people and freight to and from the city and the wider region; grow passenger numbers and freight using the airport
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	PNAL is playing an active part in growing the City.

Attachments

1.	Annual Report for Year ended 30 June 2025 ⇩
2.	Letter and Notice of Annual Meeting ⇩

REPORT

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 8 October 2025

TITLE: Deliberations advice - proposed Linklater Reserve on-leash dog control area

PRESENTED BY: Stacey Solomon, Policy Analyst

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL

1. That the Council adopt Option 2, and make the area at Linklater Reserve from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark up to the first treeline behind the BMX track dogs on-leash, encompassing the wetlands area and the children’s playgrounds and play spaces (but not the aeroplane), as described in Figure 3.

2. That the Council instruct the Chief Executive to prepare an amended Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw for adoption.

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED LINKLATER RESERVE ON-LEASH DOG CONTROL AREA

Problem or Opportunity	The Council has consulted on its proposal to make part of Linklater Reserve (the Reserve) a dogs on-leash area. This report provides information in response to submitters, and should be used to inform the deliberations of the Council. Having considered submissions, the Council should choose to either proceed with its proposal, proceed with an amended proposal or not proceed with the proposal.
OPTION 1:	Adopt the proposal (with minor adjustments) and make the area of Linklater Reserve from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark, up to the aeroplane a dogs on-leash area This option is not recommended
Community Views	Option 1 is not supported by the majority of submitters and petitioners, who have strongly opposed it. However a number of submitters do support the proposal of the Council.
Benefits	This option meets the expectations of those submitters who prefer an area of the Reserve be made dogs on-leash to support safer general recreation activity, while still providing an area for off-leash exercise for dogs. This option also overcomes the contradiction in the Councils own policy related to dogs being off-leash in areas where children or other vulnerable people are likely to be.
Risks	There is a risk that any rule change is not followed by park users and is therefore ineffective. There is also reputational risk associated with Option 1, where submitters that do not support the proposal feel that are not being listened to by the Council.
Financial	There are costs associated with Option 1 which exceed current budget provision. Additional budget would need to be made available to implement the option.
OPTION 2:	Adopt an amended proposal which makes the area from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark up to the first treeline behind the BMX track on-leash, encompassing the wetlands area and the children’s playgrounds and play spaces (but not the aeroplane) This option is recommended
Community Views	Submitters (many reluctantly) considered this option to be a compromise between status quo, and the original proposal of the Council.
Benefits	This option responds to most submitters, those who do and those who do not support the proposal. It retains more of the Reserve for off-leash exercise than Option 1, keeping the children’s play equipment and play spaces in the on-leash area. Option 2 also overcomes the Council’s own policy conflicts.
Risks	As with any of the options, there is a risk that a rule change is not followed by park users and is ineffective. This option does not address the requests of submitters who preferred that the wetland area be off-leash for dogs.
Financial	Option 2 can be accommodated within current budget.
OPTION 3:	Adopt an amended proposal to make the area of Linklater Reserve from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark up to the first treeline behind the BMX track on-leash, encompassing the children’s playgrounds and play spaces (but not the aeroplane), and excluding the wetlands area This option is not recommended
Community Views	Submitters specified the wetland area as being especially important for off-leash dog exercise and socialisation. This option would be disruptive for the disc-golf course, which would require relocation of some of the equipment.
Benefits	This option makes the wetlands area off-leash for dogs, does not require moving the agility course, and encompasses most of the children’s play spaces. This option also overcomes the Councils own policy conflicts.
Risks	There is a risk that a rule change is not followed by park users and is ineffective.
Financial	Option 3 exceeds current budget.
OPTION 4:	Not proceed with the proposal and instead fence some or all of the playground equipment at Linklater Reserve. The whole of Linklater Reserve will remain a dogs off-leash exercise area This option is not recommended
Community Views	Submitters argue that fencing the playgrounds would be an acceptable way to reduce the risk an uncontrolled dog might have in one of the higher-risk areas of the Reserve.
Benefits	This option does not require changes to the Policy or the Bylaw (while overcoming the Councils own policy conflicts), and would satisfy the requests of a majority of submitters.
Risks	There is a risk that this option does not meet the expectations of submitters who expect that part of Linklater Reserve will be made on-leash.
Financial	Option 4 exceeds current budget.
OPTION 5:	Not proceed with the proposal and consider additional regulatory or non-regulatory methods to address issues at Linklater Reserve related to safety, amenity, and access. The whole of Linklater Reserve will remain a dogs off-leash exercise area This option is not recommended
Community Views	Option 5 supports those submitters who have proposed additionally regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives to a rule change at Linklater Reserve.
Benefits	This option supports and promotes behaviour change and responsible dog ownership (which includes compliance with current controls). This option could be implemented on its own, or in addition to any of the other options noted here.
Risks	Option 5 will have ongoing long-term benefits, but may be less effective at addressing any immediate safety concerns.
Financial	The financial implications of Option 5 are significant. Exact costs would be determined by the preferred alternative methods pursued by the Council.
OPTION 6:	Not proceed with the proposal and maintain status quo This option is not recommended
Community Views	Option 6 would support the views of those who have opposed the proposal and have asked that the rules stay as they are, consequently this option does not support the views of those who agree that an on-leash area should be established at the Reserve.
Benefits	Option 6 stops this process and is responsive to most submitters.
Risks	Some dissatisfaction from the community who have asked for changes, or supported the proposal of the Council.
Financial	There are no financial implications to note if status quo is maintained.

EXECUTIVE Summary

· The Council has consulted with the community on the proposal to make part of Linklater Reserve dogs on-leash. Submissions on the proposal covered a range of views with mixed opinions. Most submitters did not support the proposal.

· This report recommends that the Council not proceed with its original proposal, and instead adopt an amended proposal which retains more of Linklater Reserve for dogs off-leash exercise and socialisation (Option 2). If the Council decides to proceed with the original proposal, an adjustment has been made to the proposed off-leash area in response to submissions from disc-golfers.

· Information and analysis for alternative reasonable options available to the Council is provided, as are the expected next steps for those options.

· Attached to this report is a complete submission analysis, the assessment framework which has been developed and applied to the options presented, a summary of consultation activity, and an overview of the dog control areas in Palmerston North.

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Council has consulted with the community on the proposal to make part of Linklater Reserve dogs on-leash. Linklater Reserve (the Reserve) is currently all off-leash for dogs, except for the children’s play spaces and play equipment.

1.2 The Council should now deliberate on the submissions received, the advice prepared in response to those submissions (Attachment 1), and proceed with its proposal, proceed with an amended proposal, or not proceed and retain all of the Reserve as a dogs off-leash area.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1. On 28 May 2025, the Strategy & Finance Committee (the Committee) received a petition from the Kelvin Grove Community Association (KGCA) to make part of Linklater Reserve on-leash for dogs. The petition followed a prior submission of the KGCA to the review of the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy (the Policy) and the Palmerston North Dog Control Bylaw (the Bylaw) in early 2024, where the KGCA made a similar request of the Council to make an area of the Reserve dogs on-leash. Staff advised the Committee not to change the rules for the Reserve at that time (2024). The Committee instead resolved to receive further information and advice following engagement with the community on the option of designating part of Linklater Reserve an on-leash area for dogs.^{^[2]}

2.2 In early 2025, we completed engagement with the community. A mixture of feedback was received, with most people preferring that the whole of the Reserve be retained as an off-leash exercise area. In May 2025, the Committee approved consultation on a proposal to make part of Linklater Reserve dogs on-leash, specifically the area of the Reserve from the Kelvin Grove Road up to the aeroplane (described in Figure 1). Consultation occurred between 27 June 2025 and 28 July 2025.

Figure 1: Proposed on-leash area at Linklater Reserve

3. Response to consultation

3.1 Consultation returned 965 submissions, a petition unsupportive of the proposal with 226 signatures (66 signatories also made submissions), and 36 submissions from Year 3 students at Cornerstone Christian School (which is located in the Kelvin Grove aera). The response is summarised in Table 1, below.

Submission response	Count
Support the proposal:	136 [14.1%]
Do not support the proposal:	795 [82.4%]
Are not sure / have no preference:	16 [1.7%]
Did not state / it is not clear for staff to determine a preference:	18 [1.8%]
Total submissions	965
NOTE: three of the submissions the Council received were:
A petition from Elizabeth Schaw which does not support the proposal (original submission 901). Sixty-six signatories to the petition also made individual submissions	226 signatures
Collated submissions from Year 3 students at Cornerstone Christian School (original submission 902 – noted as ‘group one’ in the Committee agenda)	21 mixed responses
Collated submissions from Year 3 students at Cornerstone Christian School (original submission 951 – noted as ‘group two’ in the Committee agenda)	15 mixed responses

Table 1: Overall submission response

Hearing of submissions and summary of submissions

3.2 Common themes from submitters that did not support the proposal were:

· That most had not experienced or witnessed an incident or issue at the Reserve (such as an intimidating or aggressive dog, or dog attack) that would be cause enough to make half of the Reserve dogs on-leash

· That most dog owners are responsible dog owners; making half of the Reserve on-leash unfairly penalises good dog owners

· That Linklater Reserve was gifted to the Council/purchased by the Council specifically to be used as an off-leash dog park

· That a small number of people have asked for the change when they could use one of the many other reserves in the city where dogs are not allowed off-leash

· That the majority were not being listened to

3.3 Common themes from submitters that did support the proposal were:

· That they had experienced an incident with a dog that made them support an on-leash area at the Reserve

· That they would feel safer using the Reserve with a part of it being made dogs on-leash

· That the Reserve is not a dog park and that it should be for everyone to use, not just dog owners

3.4 A detailed analysis of submissions, as well as responses and recommend ways forward, is provided in Attachment 1.

3.5 We have developed six options for the Council to consider through deliberations. The methodology for assessment of the options is briefly explained in the next section of this report. A detailed assessment of the options is provided in Attachment 2.

4. Methodology for assessing options

4.1 Each option presented is developed from submission feedback and responds to different aspects of submitters’ views. Because it is not possible for any option to satisfy the needs and diverse or opposing requests of every submitter, simple criteria have been developed and applied for the options so that each can be considered consistently and fairly by the Council. This ensures that each option is evaluated for its responsiveness to community views, and its alignment with broader strategic, operational, and community objectives. The criteria are:

· Criteria 1: the option complies with and supports matters required under the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA)^{^[3]}

· Criteria 2: the option aligns with the Councils own policies on dog control described in the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw

· Criteria 3: the option supports the achievement of the long-term goals, priorities, and vision of the Council set through the Long Term Plan 2024-34 and Oranga Papaioea City Strategy

· Criteria 4: the option is responsive to the feedback of submitters

· Criteria 5: the option can be easily and effectively implemented

· Criteria 6: the resource requirements and affordability of the option

· Criteria 7: the risk to the Council of proceeding with the option

4.2 We have used a qualitative assessment for each of the options, supported by data, submissions content, and other information where it is available and appropriate. The analysis describes the general strengths and weaknesses (expressed as advantages and disadvantages) of the options.

5. Description of Options

5.1 Six reasonable options have been identified:

5.2 Option 1: adopt the proposal with minor adjustments, and make the area of Linklater Reserve from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark, up to the aeroplane a dogs on-leash area. This is shown in Figure 2.

5.3 Option 2: adopt an amended proposal which makes the area from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark up to the first treeline behind the BMX track on-leash, encompassing the wetlands area and the children’s playgrounds and play spaces (but not the aeroplane). This is shown in Figure 3.

5.4 Option 3: adopt an amended proposal to make the area of Linklater Reserve from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark up to the first treeline behind the BMX track on-leash, encompassing the children’s playgrounds and play spaces (but not the aeroplane), and excluding the wetlands area. This is shown in Figure 4.

5.5 Option 4: not proceed with the proposal and instead fence some or all of the playground equipment at Linklater Reserve. The whole of Linklater Reserve will remain a dogs off-leash exercise area. This is shown in Figure 5.

5.6 Option 5: not proceed with the proposal and consider additional regulatory or non-regulatory methods to address issues at Linklater Reserve related to safety, amenity, and access. The whole of Linklater Reserve will remain a dogs off-leash exercise area. This is shown in Figure 6.

5.7 Option 6: not proceed with the proposal and maintain status quo. The whole of Linklater Reserve will remain a dogs off-leash exercise area.

6. Analysis of options

6.1 This section of the report presents an analysis of options. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are described, and information relevant to implementation, including impact on budget and levels of service is provided.

6.2 Table 2 (below) provides a total summary all of the options’ advantages and disadvantages assessed against the criteria. Based on the analysis, Option 2 is recommended.

	Criteria 1 Legislative alignment	Criteria 2 Policy alignment	Criteria 3 Strategic alignment	Criteria 4 Responsive to feedback	Criteria 5 Easy to implement	Criteria 6 Within budget	Criteria 7 Risk	Recomm-ended option
Option 1	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	Yes	No	Low	No
Option 2	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low/ medium	Yes
Option 3	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	No	No	Low/ Medium	No
Option 4	Yes	Yes	Partial	Partial	Yes	No	Low	No*
Option 5	Partial	Partial	Partial	Partial	No	No	Low/ medium	No
Option 6	Partial	Partial	Partial	Partial	Yes	Yes	Low/ medium	No

Table 2: Summary of options analysis

*If the Council does not to proceed with Option 2, Option 4 is the next most proportionate response to submissions received and issues identified when assessed against the criteria. Option 4 would require some additional budget be made available.

Option 1: adopt the proposal with minor adjustments, and make the area of Linklater Reserve from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark, up to the aeroplane a dogs on-leash area (described in Figure 2)

Figure 2: Option 1

6.3 This is the option that the Council should choose if, considering the submissions received and information provided in submission analysis, it wants to proceed with the proposal.

NOTE: an adjustment to the proposed fence line is suggested in response to submissions from disc-golf users. The adjustment recommended for Option 1 is to move the fence back approximately 20metres, so that the disc-golf goal 6 basket and goal 7 teepad is not obstructed by the fence and is included in the on-leash area. This would also encompass the aeroplane in the on-leash area.

Advantages of Option 1

6.4 Option 1 supports the requirements of s.10(4)(a-d) of the DCA by reducing risks posed by uncontrolled dogs, especially in areas used by children, while still providing significant space for dog exercise and recreation. The availability of different access points to the Reserve for the on-leash and off-leash areas further accommodates users that prefer not to leash or un-leash their dogs when moving from dog control area to another.

6.5 This option supports the message that anyone who wants to use the Reserve can do so fairly and safely. While the Linklater Reserve has a strong identity in the community as a “dog park”, it has always been intended to be used for a variety of recreational activities. Option 1 may encourage those who have not previously used the Reserve, because of concerns about sharing the space with off-leash dogs, to do so in future.

6.6 Option 1 also has the advantage of correcting a conflict within the Council’s own Policy which identifies areas where “Children or other vulnerable people gather or play, and the presence of dogs may pose a risk to their health and safety” and the areas around children’s playgrounds, as being prohibited to dogs. The presence of children’s play equipment at the Reserve, initially installed at the request of the community and Reserve users, now creates a possible safety issue and Policy conflict. Option 1 corrects this by putting children’s play spaces and play equipment in an on-leash area.

NOTE: The advantages which apply to Option 1 also apply to Option 2 (discussed below).

Disadvantages of Option 1

6.7 Submitters that do not support the proposal have highlighted the following disadvantages:

a. It is a significant reduction in off-leash space at the Reserve, as well as for the city as a whole

6.8 There are 20 off-leash areas in the city of varying sizes and amenities, covering 227.44 hectares of space. Linklater Reserve is roughly 24 hectares; the proposal would make 10 of these hectares on-leash, which would be around a 5 percent reduction in total off-leash space across the city, and is considered minimal overall. Attachment 4 provides information on all the dog control areas in Palmerston North.

b. the proposed off-leash area has less amenity (the play equipment, toilet, wetlands, concreted walkways are in the on-leash area) and disadvantages the community that prefer to walk their dogs off-leash

6.9 The proposal does not prohibit the dogs from being anywhere in the Reserve, apart from the children’s play equipment and play spaces, which is a control that already exists. The amenity of the front area of the Reserve will still be available to all dogs and owners, provided the dogs are leashed. While significant development of the back area of the Reserve is limited by the requirements of the flightpath for Palmerston North Airport, some amenity could be added – such as seating and connected walkways.

c. submitters with additional mobility requirements, such as those with disabilities or parents with a stroller and young children, will find it difficult to use the Reserve

6.10 Submitters have described how the facilities at the Reserve, along with being able to have their dog off-leash, currently supports their accessibility needs. They reference the features in the front of the Reserve, such as concreted walkways, sloping grass areas, and more seating options as being especially important. Should the proposal proceed, many of these submitters state they may not be able to use the park, as they would be manging their individual accessibility needs as well as an on-leash dog, which could prove challenging, or in some cases, not possible.

d. changes in the rules are unpopular, and are not going to be followed

6.11 There is a real risk that people will not follow the rules if they are changed. Some submitters have stated they are not going to follow an on-leash rule. While this sentiment highlights a genuine risk of non-compliance, it underscores the importance of a clear communication campaign with the community leading up to the date when any rule change becomes effective and enforceable. Changes will need to be accompanied by a robust engagement and education strategy to build understanding and to ensure that the rationale for the change is transparent, and that the benefits—both for individuals and the wider community—are clearly articulated.

e. on-leash dogs create more safety concerns than off-leash dogs

6.12 The Council does not capture data about whether dog related incidents are caused by on-leash dogs or off-leash dogs at Linklater Reserve, or anywhere else in the city. Nor is it clear if the situations described in submissions are dog vs. dog when both dogs are on-leash, or when only one dog is on-leash. It is up to owners, and is the expectation of the Council, that owners ensure their dogs are well socialised, exercised, and are always under control, whether or not the dog is on a leash in an on-leash space, or an off-leash space.^{^[4]}

f. the proposed fence line would be disruptive to goal 6 and teepad 7 of the disc-golf course

6.13 The current arrangement of the disc-golf course requires players to throw their disc through a line of trees (or over the top, or along the ground) to get the disc into the basket. A fence at the proposed location would make it difficult to play this disc-golf hole, and to tee-off from teepad 7. An adjustment to the proposed fence line is suggested, which moves the fence back approximately 20 metres, so that the affected basket and teepad is included in the on-leash area. Moving the basket and teepad into the on-leash space, and keeping the fence line as described in the original proposal is also an option.

Resource requirements and affordability of Option 1

6.14 If option 1 proceeds, additional budget provision will need to be made available. Option 1 has a cost to implement of $93,173 excluding GST; the current budget available this year for work at Linklater Reserve is $30,600.

Implementation of Option 1

6.15 Implementation of Option 1 would involve:

a. the installation of a 300 metre long fence with three self-returning gates for service vehicle and pedestrian access. As the fence will be constructed within 300 metres of the airways radar, it will need to be constructed in a material which does not interfere with that radar e.g.: a plastic mesh

b. extending 250 metres of the walkways to make complete loops on either side of the fence

c. fencing or relocating the agility equipment (includes installing new hard surfaces and concrete footings)

d. installing new signage

6.16 The change in the rule in the Policy and the Bylaw will be timed to commence after the installation of the proposed fence and additional walkways and is completed. Messaging about the rule change will be communicated with the public.

Recommendation

6.17 Option 1 has some benefits which have been noted above. These benefits are tempered by the disadvantage of not being able to afford the proposal, and do not outweigh the benefits of Option 2 or Option 4.

6.18 Option 1 is not recommended.

Option 2: adopt an amended proposal which makes the area from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark up to the first treeline behind the BMX track on-leash, encompassing the wetlands area and the children’s playgrounds and play spaces (but not the aeroplane) (described in Figure 3)

Figure 3: Option 2

6.19 This is the option that the Council should choose if, considering the submissions received and information provided in the submission analysis in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, it wants to amend its proposal to keep more of the Reserve off-leash than was proposed, but retain a generous on-leash area at Linklater Reserve.

Advantages of Option 2

6.20 Option 2 has the same advantages as Option 1 related to legislative compliance, and encouraging fair and safe access of the community to the Reserve. In addition to the advantages it shares with Option 1, Option 2 has further advantages.

6.21 The significant advantage of this Option is that it is the most responsive of the options to community feedback. It is the most common alternative suggestion/compromise offered by submitters, other than not changing the rules at all. It addresses the concerns of those who described the proposal as being unbalanced, unnecessary, or too far-reaching by reducing the proposed on-leash area and preserving more off-leash space.

6.22 This Option also has the benefit of being able to be met within current budgets, as less fencing will need to be installed, fewer walkways extended, and the agility equipment can remain in its current location.

Disadvantages of Option 2

6.23 Option 2 has many of the same disadvantages as Option 1. Though a greater space for off-leash dog exercise is retained, the concerns highlighted by dog-owners with accessibility or mobility requirements that cannot be met in an on-leash area still apply here. Similarly the concerns of dog-owners who feel on-leash only access to the wetland area is detrimental to their experience in the Reserve, still apply to this option. Conversely, there are those with mobility issues who feel an on-leash area greatly improves their access (real or perceived) to the Reserve.

6.24 Option 2 carries a higher risk of legal challenge than Option 1 because the Council did not consult the community on this, and it differs to Option 1. Though additional consultation could mitigate this risk, officers advise that as the community’s views are already well understood following early engagement and consultation, further consultation is unlikely to yield new insight, or return a significantly different consultation response.

6.25 Additional consultation also risks causing more frustration among submitters as the process is further drawn out. If the Council agrees that it understands the views of the community based on the feedback it already has, then it could make a decision that progresses Option 2.

Resource requirements and affordability of Option 2

6.26 Option 2 will cost $16,388 excluding GST to implement and can be accommodated within current budgets. Initial infrastructure changes at the Reserve will be required, however this option needs little ongoing intervention other than maintenance of the physical assets.

Implementation of Option 2

6.27 Implementation of Option 2 would involve:

a) removing the old farm fence which is located at the pine tree line

b) installing a new 1.5 metre high fence (roughly 290 metres long) with four self-returning gates for pedestrian and service vehicle access. One of these gates will be located near the goal 7 disc-golf basket

c) installing new signage

6.28 Should Council adopt this option, the change in the rule in the Policy and the Bylaw will be timed to commence after the installation of the proposed fence and additional walkways and is completed. Messaging about the rule change will be communicated with the public.

Recommendation

6.29 Option 2 is a more balanced solution that reflects community feedback. It retains most of Linklater Reserve as an off-leash area for dogs, while introducing a clearly defined on-leash space to accommodate others who prefer a controlled environment. This approach promotes shared use, reduces user conflict, and incorporates key community suggestions—such as keeping agility equipment in the off-leash area, thereby reducing the cost of moving it. While there may be legal risks, reconsulting the community could also harm the Council’s reputation.

6.30 Option 2 is recommended.

Option 3: adopt an amended proposal to make the area of Linklater Reserve from the Kelvin Grove Road carpark up to the first treeline behind the BMX track on-leash, encompassing the children’s playgrounds and play spaces (but not the aeroplane), and excluding the wetlands area (described in Figure 4)

Figure 4: Option 3

6.31 This is the option that the Council should choose if, considering the submissions received and information provided in the submission analysis (attachments 1 and 2), it wants to amend its proposal, keeping most of the Reserve for off-leash exercise. The off-leash area will include the wetland and the slope to the front of the Reserve that was highlighted as particularly valuable for dogs and those with mobility needs, but keeps most of the children’s play spaces and the main entrances in an on-leash control area.

Advantages of Option 3

6.32 The advantages for Option 3 are the same as those for Options 1 and 2 related to legislative compliance and encouraging fair and safe access of the community to the Reserve.

6.33 Option 3 offers several benefits that align with community feedback, retaining many of the practical uses of the Reserve for dogs off-leash exercise. The wetland will continue to be accessible to off-leash dogs so they can use the water freely, without requiring their owners to enter the water themselves, which would be impractical and potentially unsafe.

6.34 Similarly, submitters have noted that the wetland is not a safe area for small children due to the risk of falling into water or swampy terrain, making it unsuitable for inclusion in an on-leash space. Option 3 therefore supports both dog recreation and public safety, while reflecting the preferences of many Reserve users.

6.35 Officers would work to position the proposed fence and new footpaths to better support individuals with mobility and accessibility concerns, specifically retaining the hill at the front of the Reserve within the off-leash area.

Disadvantages of Option 3

6.36 Option 3 presents significant disadvantages for the disc-golf course, which is a well-used free-to-access facility in the region.^{^[5]} If Option 3 proceeds, the course will need to be reconfigured with input from the disc-golfing community, requiring relocation of several baskets and teepads.

6.37 Submitters that value the natural aesthetic and amenity of the Reserve have indicated they prefer not to install fences as this would be disruptive for the overall “feel” of the park. A fence, as described in Option 3, will be clearly visible and from certain vantages may have a disruptive visual effect. Comparatively, the placement of the fence in Option 2 would have a negligible effect.

6.38 The same risk and risk assessment that is applied to Option 2, as regards legal challenge from proceeding without additional consultation on a different option than what was proposed, also applies to Option 3.

Resource requirements and affordability of Option 3

6.39 Option 3 requires approximately $54,368 excluding GST to implement and exceeds current budgets. The exact location of the proposed fence in Option 3 will determine which disc-golf baskets and teepads require relocating.

Implementation of Option 3

6.40 Implementation of Option 3 would involve:

a) removing the old farm fence which is located at the pine tree line

b) installing a new 1.5m high fence (roughly 500m long) with six self-returning gates for pedestrian and service vehicle access. One of these gates will be located near the goal 7 disc-golf goal

c) extending 220m of walkways to make complete loops on either side of the fence

d) installing new signage

e) reconfiguring the disc-golf course.

6.41 The change in the rule in the Policy and the Bylaw will be timed to commence after the installation of the proposed fence and additional walkways and is completed. Messaging about the rule change will be communicated with the public.

Recommendation

6.42 Option 3 could proceed if the Council wishes to maintain more of the Reserve for off-leash dog recreation and keep areas at higher risk from uncontrolled dogs, such as the playground and play equipment as well as the entranceway to the Reserve, on-leash. It offers clear benefits in terms of dog wellbeing and exercise (therefore encouraging responsible dog ownership), as well as supporting those with accessibility concerns.

6.43 However the benefits of Option 3 do not outweigh its disadvantage from the disruption to the disc-golf course and visual amenity of the park, the unaffordability of the option. The benefits of Option 3 outweigh those of Option 1, but not of Option 2.

6.44 Option 3 is not recommended.

Option 4: not proceed with the proposal and instead fence some or all of the playground equipment at Linklater Reserve. The whole of Linklater Reserve will remain a dogs off-leash exercise area (described in Figure 5)

Figure 5: Option 4

6.45 This is the Option that the Council should choose if wants to maintain the current off-leash status across the whole Reserve, and ensure the areas which are more sensitive to the adverse effects of uncontrolled off-leash dogs are made safer for users. This option does not require any changes be made to the Policy or the Bylaw as dogs are already prohibited from children’s play spaces, and fencing would clarify this existing control.

Advantages of Option 4

6.46 The primary advantage to be gained from this option is that it responds to the majority of submitters by keeping the entire Reserve as an off-leash dog exercise area, while also addressing some of the specific safety concerns that have been raised related to the children’s play spaces and play equipment.

6.47 Submitters note this would be a fair and reasonable compromise. The reasons given include that it preserves the current level of recreation amenity for dog owners which is unique to Linklater Reserve, it continues to address the needs of those with greater mobility or accessibility requirements, avoids disruption to the disc-golf course, and also affords assurance for vulnerable members in the community by fencing children’s play equipment. By introducing physical barriers, this option will resolve the conflict created by the Council’s own Policy with regard to dogs not being permitted on or near children’s play spaces, or generally off-leash in areas which are more likely to be frequented by children.

6.48 More broadly, given there are few public playgrounds (i.e. not school playgrounds) in the city which are completely fenced, Option 4 creates an additional option for this type of facility.

6.49 Option 4 also avoids the complexities associated with a change in rules. Constructing fences around some or all the children’s play equipment is an easily implemented and self-explaining method to achieve the goals of the proposal, and supports the existing controls.

Disadvantages of Option 4

6.50 While this option is seen as a fair compromise by many submitters, it does not fully resolve concerns about uncontrolled off-leash dog behaviour throughout the Reserve. Fencing the playground addresses safety around children's play spaces, but it does not mitigate risks in other areas of the park. This is likely to be particularly disappointing for those who prefer an on-leash area be implemented, so that they can utilise areas of the Reserve for general recreation without feeling intimidated or unsafe around uncontrolled off-leash dogs.

6.51 Because this option relies on physical infrastructure alone it is likely to have an immediate and location specific positive impact, but limits the potential to encourage responsible dog ownership by reinforcing the expected behaviours for dogs and people in our shared spaces elsewhere in the city.

6.52 In terms of visual amenity, though fencing is relatively easy to implement, it will alter the “feel” of the Reserve and be inconsistent with its open, rural character (in contrast to Option 2, where the visual impact of a single fence would be negligible, given its position within a treeline where a fence already exists). Careful design and placement of the fencing for Option 4 will ensure as much disruption to the visual amenity of the Reserve is able to be mitigated.

Resource requirements and affordability of Option 3

6.53 Option 4 will require budget of approximately $51,681 excluding GST, which exceeds current budget provision.

Implementation of Option 4

6.54 Implementation of Option 4 would involve the fencing of some, or all of, the following children’s playgrounds and play spaces, and other Reserve amenities:

a) swing set

b) picnic tables and BBQ

c) flying fox

d) log scramble

e) BMX track

f) aeroplane

g) constructing an alternate path for dog walkers to access the toilet facility

6.55 New instructional signage would also be installed to provide additional information to park users, specifically about expectations for off-leash dogs and responsible dog-owners, as well as reporting of dog-related incidents.

Recommendation

6.56 Option 4 retains the entire Reserve as an off-leash area, while improving safety around children’s play spaces. It supports responsible dog ownership at the Reserve by providing space for dogs and their owners to socialise and exercise, maintains accessibility, avoids disrupting the disc-golf course, and aligns with Council obligations under the Dog Control Act. It’s simple to implement and is generally supported.

6.57 However, Option 4 is less beneficial than Option 2, as it doesn’t fully address concerns about uncontrolled dogs or the comfort of general users. If Option 2 is not pursued, Option 4 is the next best alternative, offering a practical compromise without requiring rule changes. Additional budget would need to be made available.

6.58 Option 4 is not recommended.

Option 5: not proceed with the proposal and consider additional regulatory or non-regulatory methods to address issues at Linklater Reserve related to safety, amenity, and access. The whole of Linklater Reserve will remain a dogs off-leash exercise area (described in Figure 6), except for the children’s playgrounds and play spaces which are prohibited to dogs.

Figure 6: Option 5

6.59 This is the Option the Council should choose if it determines that the issues at Linklater Reserve would be better resolved by implementing additional regulatory and non-regulatory methods, such as an increased presence of Animal Management Officers.

Advantages of Option 5

6.60 This option is responsive to the suggestions of submitters that prefer the Council focus on ensuring greater compliance by encouraging responsible ownership and providing more dog owner education. The main advantage of this option is that it is likely to have positive and ongoing benefits across the whole of the city, not just at Linklater Reserve.

6.61 Many submitters have stated that they feel the proposal unfairly punishes good dog owners for the actions of the few irresponsible dog owners that occasionally use the Reserve. Option 5 addresses the concerns of these submitters and retains the current off-leash arrangements while still responding to concerns about dog behaviour and safety. It also avoids the potential disruption to other Reserve activities (like disc-golf) and the amenity impacts associated with fencing.

6.62 Additionally, it provides flexibility to target enforcement and education efforts where needed, without altering the Reserve’s layout or on-leash and off-leash rules.

Disadvantages of Option 5

6.63 Option 5 has several significant disadvantages that limit its achievability and effectiveness. Increasing the presence of Animal Management Officers at Linklater Reserve, or requiring additional dog-owner education activities be provided without further resources, would negatively impact current levels of service (LOS) for the animal management activity across the city.

6.64 This could lead to slower response times for the Animal Management Team, backlogs in investigations, and reduced attention to lower-priority complaints such as barking dogs, lost dogs, and park patrols at other locations. Redirecting resources to the Reserve may also result in decreased public satisfaction from reduced responsiveness elsewhere.

6.65 Feedback from some submitters has criticised increased spending by the Council in general, as well as for the proposal at Linklater Reserve. Option 5 is therefore unresponsive to these views, as the costs of implementation will be high and ongoing. Given these limitations, Option 5 is likely to be less sustainable and effective than alternatives that involve physical changes to the Reserve, or adjustments to dog access rules.

Resource requirements and affordability of Option 5

6.66 There are resourcing and financial implications for Option 5 which cannot be met within current budgets and resource availability. The immediate outcome of proceeding with Option 5 is that the Animal Management Team will need additional resource, or to drop the current level of service agreed to with the community through the Long Term Plan.

Implementation of Option 5

The implementation of Option 5 would require detailed discussions about the current prioritisation and levels of service for the animal management activity, which are outside of scope for this consultation process.

Recommendation

6.67 Option 5 has many potential enduring benefits, but the challenges and disadvantages related to implementation and affordability are significant. This is due to the nature of the requested interventions, which would have immediate and ongoing implications for staffing, resourcing, and prioritisation within the activity.

6.68 If Option 5 is preferred by the Council, further decisions will need to be made through a different process (likely the Long Term Plan process) to achieve the expected benefits.

6.69 Option 5 is not recommended.

Option 6: not proceed with the proposal and maintain status quo

6.70 This is the option that the Council should choose if it determines that the issues related to uncontrolled off-leash dogs at the Reserve do not require a change in the rules to address them. This option retains the current controls and levels of service at Linklater Reserve.

Advantages of Option 6

6.71 Option 6 is advantageous if Council determines that the current issues at Linklater Reserve—particularly those related to uncontrolled off-leash dogs—can be managed without changing the existing rules. This option retains all current controls and levels of service, avoiding disruption to Reserve users who are satisfied with the current off-leash arrangements. It also maintains consistency in enforcement and avoids the need for additional consultation, infrastructure changes (such as fencing), or reallocation of resources – either by way of budgets or officer time. By preserving the status quo, Council can continue to monitor and respond to issues through existing mechanisms. The current dogs off-leash space across Palmerston North is not reduced, which may also have an advantage as the city continues to grow.

6.72 Proceeding with this Option does not prevent the Council from making a different decision about the rules at Linklater Reserve in future, and consulting with the community on those.

Disadvantages of Option 6

6.73 Option 6 has some disadvantages. Though it maintains the current off-leash rules and levels of service at Linklater Reserve, it may not adequately address the concerns raised about uncontrolled dogs causing safety concerns for the community in the park. By choosing not to make any changes, Council risks leaving issues that have been highlighted through community feedback unresolved, and not meeting the expectations of those submitters who do support having an on-leash area (in contrast to Options 1, 2, and 3 that all provide a designated on-leash control area). There is risk that the same issues and concerns already identified persist, when no action is taken or remedy provided.

Resource requirements and affordability of Option 6

6.74 There are no financial implications to note regarding Option 6. The Council will continue with its current controls and service levels for managing this as an off-leash dogs at Linklater Reserve.

Implementation of Option 6

6.75 There are no significant implementation actions to note regarding Option 6. Option 6 means that this process stops here. All submitters will be notified of the outcome and what it will mean for their use and experience of the Reserve going forward.

6.76 Officers suggest that if Option 6 is preferred, additional instructional signage would still benefit all users of the Reserve by clarifying the expectations for off-leash dogs, encouraging responsible ownership, as well as reporting of incidents.

Recommendation

6.77 This option is recommended if Council, having considered all the views presented in submissions, chooses not to proceed with making any changes to the off-leash rules at Linklater Reserve.

6.78 Option 6 would support a majority of the total submission feedback, but does not address many of the issues raised, and could be perceived as a lack of responsiveness if those issues persist. If Council proceeds with Option 6, continued monitoring and engagement with Reserve users will be important to ensure that any emerging challenges are identified and addressed through existing mechanisms.

6.79 Option 6 is not recommended

7. Conclusion

7.1 Having considered the options it has to proceed, the Council should either adopt the proposal (Option 1 with minor adjustments), adopt an amended proposal (Options 2 or 3), or not adopt the proposal (Option 4, 5, or 6).

8. Next actions

8.1 Next actions will be determined by the preferred option of the Council. Implementation for each option has been described in Section 6 of this report.

8.2 If the Council proceeds with Option 1, 2, or 3, another report will be prepared for the next Council to adopt the finalised wording and controls in the Policy and Bylaw.

8.3 If the Council proceeds with Option 4, 5, or 6 this process ends here. As no change to the Policy or the Bylaw is required, no additional report will need to be required. If Option 4 proceeds, additional budget will be required for infrastructure changes at the Reserve.

8.4 For all options, submitters will be contacted with information about the status of the consultation and the next steps.

9. Outline of community engagement process

9.1 Council completed early engagement and consultation with the community. Consultation material and messaging was shared widely, using a variety of methods to ensure as many people as possible with an interest in the proposal were aware of their opportunity to share their views with the Council.

9.2 Key consultation activities included printed copies of the Statement of Proposal with hardcopy submission forms being made available from the Customer Service Centre, as well as all Council libraries. A consultation page that explained the proposal of Council, information about how people could get in touch as well as an online submission form were published on the Council’s website. Consultation information was also shared through the Council’s social media channels, direct email, posters, signage, radio interviews, as well as at two community drop-in sessions.

9.3 A detailed description of consultation and engagement activity for this process is attached to this report (Attachment 3).

10. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 9. Mahere haumaru hapori, hauora hapori 9. Community Safety and Health Plan
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Community Safety and Health Plan describes Council’s commitment to the delivery of information, education and enforcement of regulatory policy, including the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

Attachments

1.	Analysis of submissions - proposed Linklater Reserve on-leash area ⇩
2.	Assessment criteria and analysis – proposed Linklater Reserve on-leash area ⇩
3.	Consultation activities - proposed Linklater Reserve on-leash area ⇩
4.	Dog control areas across Palmerston North ⇩

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 8 October 2025

TITLE: Aokautere Business Case: Funding Options

PRESENTED BY: James Miguel, Senior Transport Planner and Waheed Ahmed, Principal Transport Planner Operations

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

Glen O'Connor, Acting General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council approve up to $400,000 of unbudgeted operational expenditure (professional services) in the 2025/26 financial year to complete the Aokautere Business Case (Option 1).

2. That Council increase the cap on the professional services budget in the 2025/26 financial year by $400,000.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Capacity constraints and safety issues at intersections on State Highway 57 (SH 57) in Aokautere are limiting residential growth. New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kothi (NZTA) has provided written approval for a small residential subdivision. NZTA has advised that further subdivision is conditional on key intersections being upgraded. Council recently reallocated capital expenditure to resolve the most immediate issues. NZTA has asked Council to complete a business case before proceeding with any intersection upgrades. There is currently no Council funding allocated to undertake the business case, and no-co-funding available from NZTA.
OPTION 1:	Approve unbudgeted expenditure (professional services) in 2025/26 to complete the Aokautere Business Case.
Community Views	Community Views were received as part of District Plan Change G Aokautere Residential Growth. Submissions, including from NZTA, raised concerns about safety, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as congestion around key intersections.
Benefits	The business case can be completed in 2025/26 to inform intersection upgrades on SH 57 and enable further residential subdivision at Aokautere.
Risks	This option has a short timeframe for delivery. There is a risk the work is not completed in 2025/26 and will need to be partially funded in 2026/27. Internal resourcing will be tested as Council has also sought to accelerate the Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road business case in 2025/26.
Financial	Unbudgeted expenditure is required because the business case is unable to be accommodated through existing professional services budgets. Co-funding is not available from NZTA.
OPTION 2:	Refer the Aokautere Business Case to the 2026/27 Annual Budget.
Community Views	Community Views were received as part of District Plan Change G Aokautere Residential Growth. Submissions, including from NZTA, raised concerns about safety, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as congestion around key intersections.
Benefits	If budget is approved as part of the 2026/27 Annual Budget, the business case can be completed to inform intersection upgrades on SH 57 and enable further residential subdivision at Aokautere.
Risks	Further delays and uncertainty in enabling residential subdivision at Aokautere, in addition to the process related delays associated with Option 1.
Financial	Will require reallocation of existing budgets or new budget allocation as part of the 2026/27 Annual budget process. Co-funding is not available from NZTA.
OPTION 3:	Refer the Aokautere Business Case to the 2027 Long Term Plan and Regional Land Transport Plan / National Land Transport Plan processes.
Community Views	Community Views were received as part of District Plan Change G Aokautere Residential Growth. Submissions, including NZTA, raised concerns about safety, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as congestion around key intersections.
Benefits	If budget is approved as part of the 2027 Long Term Plan, the business case can be completed to inform intersection upgrades on SH 57 and enable further residential subdivision at Aokautere.
Risks	Further delays and uncertainty in enabling residential subdivision at Aokautere, in addition to the process related delays associated with Option 1 and 2.
Financial	Will require budget allocation as part of the 2027 Long Term Plan. Subject to the Regional Land Transport Plan and National Land Transport Plan process, co-funding may be available from NZTA.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 In May 2024, the hearing panel for District Plan Change G: Aokautere Urban Growth released its decision approving the Plan Change. The decision requires NZTA to provide written approval for subdivision and development because of capacity and safety concerns associated with key intersections on SHS 57.

1.2 Council has received several residential subdivision consent applications in the Aokautere area for which NZTA is an affected party. Due to traffic effects on SH 57, NZTA has only approved one small subdivision.

1.3 NZTA are willing to support further subdivision and development at Aokautere provided specific intersections are upgraded. Council recently reallocated an existing capital programme to provide funding for the priority intersection upgrades. NZTA has advised Council that a business case is required before any intersection upgrades can be completed. The business case will confirm the problem and identify the most effective form of intervention.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Since the hearing panel released its decision for District Plan Change G: Aokautere Urban Growth, Council has received three subdivision consents in Aokautere. A 9-lot application from Brian Green Property, a 46-lot application from Terra Civil and another 6-lot application from Brian Green Property.

2.2 Following traffic Impact assessments of the transport network, it was identified that the intersection of Old West Road / Summerhill Drive / Aokautere Drive was at capacity and could only support a limited amount of further growth.

2.3 Based on the impact and timing of the subdivisions, NZTA has agreed to the 9-lot subdivision. However, the remaining two subdivisions cannot proceed until the Old West Rd / Summerhill Dr / Aokautere Dr intersection has been upgraded.

2.4 District Plan Change G enables significantly more residential growth than that included in the current subdivision applications. Traffic assessments completed as part of District Plan Change G and recent subdivision applications have identified that this growth will trigger the need for further intersection upgrades in the wider Summerhill / Aokautere area.

2.5 While the current subdivisions are acting as the trigger for the intersection upgrades and the business case, residential growth in the wider Aokautere / Summerhill area over the last three decades has contributed to the need for the upgrades.

2.6 As part of the Annual Budget deliberations on 14 May 2025, Council agreed to reallocate budget from capital programme 1003 ‘Whakarongo Intersection Safety Upgrade’ to be used for intersection upgrades in Aokautere (and Whakarongo). This decision was intended to ensure Council was able to fund the necessary intersection upgrades and approve the residential subdivisions.

2.7 The 14 May 2025 officer report noted that NZTA approval would still be required for any intersection upgrades on the State Highway network.

2.8 Following the reallocation of capital programmes as part of the 2025/26 Annual Budget, Council officers engaged with NZTA regarding the prioritisation and design of the intersection upgrades at Aokautere. The need for the business case was confirmed by NZTA as part of these discussions.

2.9 Council included an Aokautere Business Case in Year 3 (2026/27) of the 2024 Long Term Plan and put it forward for co-funding within the National Land Transport Plan (NLTP). The Council contribution for the business case was reallocated to the Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road business case when it did not receive co-funding from NZTA within the NLTP.

2.10 NZTA are willing to work with Council and the developers to help progress the subdivision consents, but NZTA have no current funding to assist with the business case or the intersection upgrades.

2.11 The recommendation is to approve up to $400,000 to complete the business case. If the recommendation is passed, officers will seek to meet the business case requirements of NZTA in the most cost-effective way possible to minimise the total cost to Council.

3. Description AND ANALYSIS of options

3.1 Option 1: Approve unbudgeted expenditure (professional services) in 2025/26 to complete the Aokautere Business Case – This option would enable the business case to be completed in 2025/26 to inform the intersection upgrades and enable residential subdivisions to be approved, conditional on the upgrades being delivered. This option also supports Council delivering the capital budgets that have been reallocated to support the intersection upgrades at Aokautere. There is a risk the business case is not able to be completed in 2025/26 due to the timing of this report. If the business case is unable to be complete, the balance of the work will need to be partially funded in 2026/27 via the Annual Budget process. Internal resourcing will also be tested as Council has sought to accelerate the Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road business case in 2025/26.

3.2 Option 2: Refer the Aokautere Business Case to the 2026/27 Annual Budget – This option would enable the business case to be completed in 2026/27 to inform future intersection upgrades and enable residential subdivisions to be approved, conditional on the upgrades being delivered. This option would support the Council delivering the capital budgets that have been reallocated to support the intersection upgrades at Aokautere. However, this option would result in further delays and uncertainty to residential subdivision at Aokautere, in addition to the delays associated with Option 1.

3.3 Option 3: Refer the Aokautere Business Case to the 2027 Long Term Plan and the Regional Land Transport Plan / National Land Transport Plan processes This option would enable the business case to be completed in 2027/28 to inform future intersection upgrades and enable residential subdivisions to be approved, conditional on the upgrades being delivered. However, this option would result in further delays and uncertainty to residential subdivision at Aokautere, in addition to the delays associated with Option 1 and 2. Subject to the Regional Land Transport Plan and National Land Transport Plan processes, this option may provide the opportunity for co-funding to be obtained from NZTA.

4. Conclusion

4.1 All three options require additional funding to be allocated by the Council. The key difference is the timing and the potential for co-funding from NZTA as part of option 3, which has the longest delay.

4.2 Option 1 is recommended to reduce the delays and uncertainty associated with residential development at Aokautere. Option 1 also best gives effect to the earlier decision of Council to reallocate capital programmes to deliver the necessary intersection upgrades.

5. Next actions

5.1 If the Council supports Option 1, officers will appoint a consultant to start the business case. The consultant will be appointed via the Infrastructure Design Panel.

5.2 If Council favours Option 2 or 3 the matter will be referred to the 2026/27 Annual Budget or 2027 Long Term Plan process.

6. Outline of community engagement process

6.1 Community Views were received as part of District Plan Change G Aokautere Residential Growth. Submissions, including from NZTA, raised concerns about safety, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as congestion around key intersections.

6.2 The business case will be a technical piece of work driven by data and modelling. We will not be undertaking community engagement as a part of the business case process.

7. Compliance and administration

Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 1: He tāone auaha, he tāone tiputipu Goal 1: An innovative and growing city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 3. Mahere tūnuku 3. Transport Plan The objective is: Develop a plan to support State Highway 57 interventions that connect the Aokautere growth area to the city.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Council’s role is to make sure there is enough land and infrastructure to accommodate residential growth.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 8 October 2025

TITLE: Low Carbon Fund Allocations 2024/25

Presented By: David Watson, Senior Climate Change Advisor

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Update on the Low Carbon Fund 2024/25’ presented on 8 October 2025

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Low Carbon Fund was established through the 2021 Long Term Plan (LTP) and provides up to $1,000,000 of capital funding per year to enable investments in organisational greenhouse gas emission reductions. The fund prioritises for allocation to internal projects based upon their capital cost, operational savings, emission savings, and wider strategic benefit.

1.2 This memorandum provides information on the activities of the Low Carbon Fund between July 2024 and June 2025. During that period $684,955 was allocated to 11 projects estimated to save ~$81,317.86 over their respective lifespans and 504.75t of CO2 that would otherwise have been emitted.

2. BACKGROUND

Strategic Context

2.1 The Climate Change and Sustainability Plan 2024-34 sets a target of a net 60% reduction in Council’s organisational emissions (compared to the 2016/17 baseline). Progress has been steady, with a 40.7% reduction in organisational emissions since 2015/16, as reported in the 2023/24 Annual Organisational Emissions Inventory. However, there is still a long way to go to meet, for example, the requirement of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Act 2019 for net-zero emissions by 2050. In light of this, infrastructure decisions will often ‘lock-in’ emissions through the lifetime of the asset, in some cases making Council’s task more difficult (and more costly) than it needs to be in the absence of up-front investment (e.g. through expensive retrofitting).

2.2 Even in absence of this strategic driver, a substantial incentive exists to modernise Council assets and reduce costs through improved energy efficiency. Thus, the purpose of the Low Carbon Fund is to provide flexibility, enabling Council to take advantage of unforeseen and unbudgeted opportunities, such as sources of external funding, synergies with other programmes or early renewal of energy-inefficient assets, in order to reduce organisational emissions and, where possible, costs.

Scope and Methodology

2.3 The purpose of the fund is to flexibly provide capital to enable operational emission reductions. The scope for funding is therefore the same as that in Council’s annual organisational emissions inventory. These are emissions that occur across the lifetime of an asset or activity and sit within our operational control. Conversely, ‘embodied emissions’ of construction materials, or emissions otherwise controlled by another organisation are out of scope for funding through the Fund.

2.4 Council officers have identified several eligible and operationally deliverable projects which were assessed by the Senior Climate Change Advisor with assistance from the Finance Unit. Each project is analysed in terms of its ‘Net Present Value’ (specifically, looking at their projected operational savings discounted by the Council’s cost of capital subtracted by the capital cost of the project), the projected carbon savings, and a 30% weighting to wider strategic benefit, if any. Applications are then prioritised by which projects deliver the greatest benefit per dollar. Consequently, leaving aside deliverability concerns, the fund is generally ambivalent to the scale of the project, and a $30,000 application is at no inherent disadvantage compared to a $300,000 application. If the former provides greater value for money, then it will receive priority. The current cut off benchmark for funding is the spot price of carbon through the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This price has varied from $52.5 per tonne on 01.07.2024 to $57.9 per tonne on 31.06.2025 with a high of $64 and a low of $48^{^[7]}. Only projects that deliver emission reductions at a lower cost per tonne of carbon equivalent than the cost Council could pay through the ETS are eligible. The September 2025 auction for ETS credits attracted no bids as participants continue to spend stockpiled credits indicating a rising price in the future.

2.5 Following this analysis, a series of recommendations are made to the Chief Executive to approve the re-allocation of funds from the Low Carbon Fund into the respective programmes associated with each project that meets the above criteria. These are then delivered by the respective activity teams as with any other programme.

3. Funding Allocation – 2023/24

3.1 A total of $684,955 was allocated between July 2024 and June 2025 to the following capital programmes:

Project Description	Capital Cost	Net Present Savings	Carbon Savings (tonnes)	Project Status
LED Lighting at Freyberg Pool	$118,980	-$50,931.27	21.05 [-$2,419/t]	Complete
Replacing Ride-on Mowers with Electric alternatives	$54,610	-$2,131.84	22.00 [-$96/t]	Complete
Electric ATV at Awapuni to replace tractor use	$36,736	-$4,288.02	24.5 [-$174.99/t]	Complete
Rollout of electric power tools for parks teams	$14,454	$139.12	4.94 [$28/t]	Complete
LED Lighting at the Turitea WTP	$2,245	-$0.95	0.82 [-$1.16/t]	Complete
Electric heat pump at the amenities block at The Depot	$8,500	-$296.70	9.88 [-$30.04/t]	Complete
Electric heat pump at the Milson Community Centre	$12,300	-$6,559.85	3.70 [-$1,773.46/t]	Complete
Outdoor LED Lighting at the Lido	$22,080	-$14,010.72	0.22 [-$62,697/t]	Complete
Replacement of UV filters at the Lido with more efficient alternatives	$64,100	-$139.87	0.40 [-$352.49/t]	Complete
VSD and automation systems at the Lido	$10,000	-$94.83	3.97 [-$23.87/t]	Complete
Solar enabling works at the Lido	$302,500	-$2,779.59	383.25 [-$7.25/t]	Due for completion September 2025

Table 1 - List of 2024/25 Low Carbon Fund Allocations to date

3.2 Over the lifetime of these assets, the projects are estimated to save ~$81,317.86 (above capital and interest costs, in 2024 dollars). The projects are estimated to save 504.75 tCO2e that would otherwise have been emitted.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 Officers will continue to look for opportunities through the new financial year, particularly to provide marginal additional funding to projects to enable improvements in efficiency or sustainability.

4.2 The enabling works at the Lido will provide a platform for the design and installation of a solar power system over the coming year. With the continuing decline in the cost of installing solar, we expect many solar projects not current eligible to receive funding will become so in the near future.

4.3 The approach taken in apportioning this fund is widely applicable to Council investment and budget setting decisions. A mechanism for determining the whole life cost of an asset and identifying projects where additional up-front Capex expenditure can result in whole life savings, both financial and in emissions, would be highly desirable. More information on carbon calculation and assessment will be provided to staff making investment and purchasing decisions in the future.

5. Compliance and administration

Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 1: He tāone auaha, he tāone tiputipu Goal 1: An innovative and growing city Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 10. Mahere āhuarangi hurihuri, toitūtanga 10. Climate Change and Sustainability Plan The objective is: Make decarbonisation improvements to Council facilities, processes and purchasing.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Low Carbon Fund is the primary mechanism for delivering the quoted action, “Provide the Environmental Sustainability Fund (for Council processes) to compensate for the additional cost of lower carbon and more energy- efficient purchases”.

Attachments

Nil

[1] The depreciation & amortisation expense is significantly higher than in the past due to the accelerated depreciation of the old terminal. Due to project timing the expense for 2024/25 is less than budget but difference is now expected to be reflected in the 2025/26 year.

[2]Resolution 26-24: That the Chief Executive engage with the community around the option of designating part of Linklater Park as dog-on-lead, and report back to the Strategy & Finance Committee, Strategy & Finance Committee May 2024.

[3] Section 10(4)(a-d) of the Dog Control Act 1996 states when making its Policy for dogs (which includes where and why it will permit dogs off-leash in public spaces), the Council must have regard to:

· s.10(4)(a) the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

· s.10(4)(b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

· s.10(4)(c) the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

· s.10(4)(d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

[4] The Council provides helpful information on its website for people who want to know more about the best ways to socialise dogs, and how to report dog related incidents https://www.pncc.govt.nz/Services/Dogs-and-other-animals/Dogs

[5] From information logged by players int eh U-Disc app, between January 2024 and June 2025, 226 players completed 2,717 rounds, totalling over 2,188 hours of recreation, with most users living within 25 km of the Reserve.

[6] https://palmerstonnorth.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/10/SCCCC_20231011_AGN_11157_AT_WEB.htm

[7] https://www.mynativeforest.com/carbon-price-nz

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

Year 1 (FY 24/25)	Year 2 (FY 25/26)	Year 3 (FY 26/27)
$100,000	$380,000	$662,000

#	Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause
1	2026	Report back on Investment Options for PN Airport.	GM Corporate Services		6 December 2023 Clause 197-23
2	~~8 Oct 2025~~	~~Dog Policy/ Bylaw – Deliberations~~	~~GM Strategic Planning~~	~~Moved from Strategy & Finance Committee~~
3	~~8 Oct~~ ~~2025~~	~~Low Carbon Fund Allocations 2024/25~~	~~GM Strategic Planning~~	~~Moved from Sustainability Committee~~	~~21 August 2024~~ ~~Clause 24-24~~
4	~~8 Oct 2025~~	~~Citywide Emissions Inventory 2024 Annual Report~~	~~GM Strategic Planning~~	~~Moved from Sustainability Committee~~	~~Climate Change Plan~~ ~~Action 3~~
5	~~8 Oct 2025~~	~~PNCC Organisational Emissions Inventory 2024/25 Annual Report~~	~~GM Strategic Planning~~	~~Moved from Sustainability Committee~~	~~Climate Change Plan~~ ~~Action 1~~
6	~~8 Oct~~ ~~2025~~ Feb 2026	Review of PNCC Appointment of Directors Policy.	GM Corporate Services		2 Oct 2024 Clause 172
7	~~8 Oct 2025~~	~~Adopt Annual Report 2024-25~~	~~Chief Executive~~	~~Rec from Risk and Assurance Committee~~	~~Terms of Reference~~
	~~8 Oct 2025~~	~~PNAL - Annual Report 2024/25~~	~~GM Corporate Services~~	~~Moved from Economic Growth~~
	~~8 Oct~~ Nov 2025	CEDA Annual Report 2024/25	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Economic Growth
8	~~8 Oct~~ Nov 2025	Quarter 4 – Economic Update	GM Strategic Planning	Moved from Economic Growth
	~~8 Oct 2025~~	~~Deliberation and Adoption – Kahuterawa Reserve Management Plan~~	~~GM Infrastructure~~	Recs from Culture and Sport Committee
9	~~8 Oct 2025~~	~~Tender for Wyndham Street upgrade & review of camber on Wyndham from Cambridge to Salisbury Ashhurst.~~	~~GM Infrastructure~~		~~6 August 2025~~ ~~clause 113-25~~
10	~~8 Oct~~ Nov 2025	Atawhai Park - Land Exchange - Deliberations	GM Infrastructure		6 August 2025 clause 117-25
11	2026	Summerhays Reports – Partnership Models Expressions of Interest	GM Infrastructure	Lying on the Table	1 May 2024 Clause 66-24 and 74 -24
16	~~Oct 2025~~	~~Manawatū Ring Road – Draft Business Case timeframe~~	~~GM Strategic Planning~~		~~Economic Growth~~ ~~27 August 2025~~

Date of meeting	Report Title	Released	Withheld
8 May 2024 (Strategy and Finance Committee)	Ashhurst Three Bridges Loop Track	Report, Decision and Division.	N/A
4 September 2024	Parking Contract Extension - Frog Parking	Report (redacted), Decision and Division.	N/A
2 April 2025	Te Āpiti Ashhurst (3 bridges) Loop - Land Purchase and Progress	Report, Decision and Division.	N/A
2 April 2025	Nature Calls - Lead Technical Consultant contract extension	Report, Decision and Division.	N/A
6 August 2025	Appointment to Council Controlled Organisations	Report, Decision and Division.	Attachments

1.	Annual Report 2024/25 (attached separately)
2.	Summary Annual Report 2024/25 (attached separately)

1.	Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road Revised Timeline ⇩
2.	Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road Revised Timeline Forecast ⇩

Does Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		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: 10. Mahere āhuarangi hurihuri, toitūtanga 10. Climate Change and Sustainability Plan The objective is: Develop a road map to achieving a low carbon city.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Measuring progress towards the carbon reduction target.

1.	Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill ⇩
2.	Online Casino Gambling Bill Submission ⇩