Agenda of Regional Council - Thursday, 1 August 2024

Item No.	Subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Grounds under Section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	When the item can be released into the public
11.1	Public Excluded Regional Council Minutes - 26 June 2024	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	To remain in public excluded.
11.2	Public Excluded Regional Council Minutes - 5 April 2024	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	To remain in public excluded.
11.3	Public Excluded Regional Council Minutes - 24 April 2024	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	To remain in public excluded.
11.4	Tauranga City Centre Bus Layover Site - Options Assessment	Withholding the information is necessary to enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(h).	On the Chief Executive's approval.

Regional Council Minutes

26 June 2024

Regional Council

Open Minutes

Commencing: Wednesday 26 June 2024, 09:32 am

Venue: Council Chambers, Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga and via Zoom (Audio-Visual meeting)

Chairperson: Chairman Doug Leeder

Deputy Chairperson: Deputy Chairperson Jane Nees

Members: Cr Malcolm Campbell

Cr Stuart Crosby

Cr Toi Kai Rākau Iti

Cr Matemoana McDonald

Cr Kat Macmillan

Cr Ron Scott

Cr Paula Thompson (via Zoom)

Cr Lyall Thurston

Cr Andrew von Dadelszen

Cr Te Taru White

Cr Kevin Winters

Cr Ken Shirley (via Zoom)

In Attendance: Fiona McTavish – Chief Executive; Mat Taylor – General Manager, Corporate; Reuben Fraser – General Manager, Regulatory Services; Namouta Poutasi – General Manager, Strategy and Science; Chris Ingle – General Manager, Integrated Catchments; Karen Aspey – General Manager, People and Capability; Kumaren Perumal – Chief Financial Officer; Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager; Steve Groom – Governance Manager; Mark Le Comte – Principal Advisor, Finance; Oliver Haycock – Director, Public Transport; Margaret Courtney - Senior Advisor (via Zoom); Claudia Cameron – Committee Advisor

Audit NZ: Leon Pieterse and Warren Goslett.

Apologies: Cr Ken Shirley (for possible intermittent attendance due to unstable technology connectivity)

1. Opening Karakia

A karakia was provided by Cr Te Taru White.

2. Apologies

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Accepts the apology from Cr Ken Shirley, for intermittent attendance due to unstable technology connectivity, tendered at the meeting.

Thurston/von Dadelszen

CARRIED

3. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Cr Stuart Crosby and Cr Te Taru White, as Quayside Holdings Ltd Directors, declared an interest in items relating to Quayside Holdings Limited, being Minute Item 5.4 – Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Adoption. The following statement was read by both Councillors:

As a Director of Quayside Holdings and Quayside Securities, I declare a conflict of interest on item 9.4 on the agenda, and in particular in relation to the consideration of a potential managed sell-down of the Port of Tauranga Ltd shareholding. For the avoidance of doubt, as this item is a decision, I will not be expressing any view by participating in the debate and will abstain from voting specifically on recommendation 6(b)(i) on Agenda Item 9.4, which pertains to the adoption of the Financial Strategy contained within the Long Term Plan, including the Council’s decisions on Quayside’s shareholding in Port of Tauranga Limited. As this is a public meeting, I will be available to answer any questions as Director of Quayside if required

Chairman Doug Leeder noted his position as Port of Tauranga Director in relation to Minute Item 5.4 – Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Adoption, and read the following statement:

I note that I am attending this meeting as an elected member of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. I am also a Director of Port of Tauranga Limited, as the Council’s representative on that Board. I advise that I do not consider there to be a conflict of interest for this meeting. I will consider the matters that are being discussed with an open mind, bearing in mind my role as a councillor. I have received independent legal advice concerning this matter and further advise this meeting that I have declared to the Port of Tauranga Board my role with the Council and that I do not intend to vote or participate in any discussions that the Port of Tauranga Board may wish to have on this matter. I have no financial interest in the Port of Tauranga or in Quayside Holding’s Perpetual Preference Shares.

4. Minutes

Minutes to be Confirmed

4.1

Regional Council Minutes - 9 May 2024

Matters arising:

Minute Item 6.3 - A brief update was provided regarding the representation review project.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Confirms the Regional Council Minutes - 9 May 2024 as a true and correct record.

White/Winters

CARRIED

4.2

Regional Council Minutes - 27 May 2024

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Confirms the Regional Council Minutes - 27 May 2024 as a true and correct record.

Nees/Winters

CARRIED

4.3

Regional Council Minutes - 28 May 2024

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Confirms the Regional Council Minutes - 28 May 2024 as a true and correct record.

Leeder/Iti

CARRIED

4.4

Extraordinary Regional Council Minutes - 11 June 2024

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Confirms the Extraordinary Regional Council Minutes - 11 June 2024 as a true and correct record.

Leeder/Thurston

CARRIED

5. Reports

Decisions Required

5.1

Adoption of Revenue and Financing Policy

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer and Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager

9.40 am – Cr Ken Shirley entered the meeting.

Key Points:

· This report incorporated feedback provided as part of the deliberations.

In Response to Questions:

· Confirmed delegations to the Chief Executive applied to the Acting Chief Executive

· Assured members that the current Revenue and Financing Policy provided enough flexibility to fund the NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi funding shortfall from reserves.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Adoption of Revenue and Financing Policy;

2 Notes that Council has consulted on proposed changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy and has followed the Local Government Act 2002 section 82 Principles of Consultation, and section 83 Special Consultative Procedure, in preparing and consulting on the policy;

3 Adopts the following policy and its supporting information:

(a) Revenue and Financing Policy (Attachment 1)

(b) Funding Needs Analysis, supporting the Revenue and Financing Policy (Attachment 2);

4 Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to make minor editorial changes, if necessary.

Crosby/Thurston

CARRIED

5.2

Adoption of the updated Significance and Engagement Policy

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer and Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager

Key Points:

· Outlined the amendment to policy in response to discissions at deliberations.

In Response to Questions:

· Editorial changes were able to be made in response to today’s comments.

Key Points - Members:

· Considered additional wording was required to further clarify that more information was required, and a number of subsequent council considerations and decisions were to be made, prior to any share sales could or would be made by Quayside Holdings Ltd

· With respect to new text on page 87 of the report and page 95 of the policy, further wording was needed to clarify that further information was required and a number of subsequent council considerations and decisions were required before any share sales could or would be made by Quayside.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Adoption of the updated Significance and Engagement Policy;

2 Adopts the Significance and Engagement Policy, included as Attachment 1;

3 Delegates to the Chief Executive the ability to make minor editorial changes to the Significance and Engagement Policy before publication.

von Dadelszen/Scott

CARRIED

5.3

Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Strategic Framework

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer and Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager

Key Points:

· Provided output of deliberations and discussions at the 28 May deliberations meeting. Report summarised two changes directed to be changed in Strategic Framework by Council:

o Connected Communities outcome to be renamed to “Connected and Enabled Communities”; and

o New goal 11 to be included in framework

Key Points - Members:

· Under goal seven, nature-based solution, requested that a bullet point regarding rivers be included as this was a significant part of our nature-based solutions work.

· Requested that under goal eight of Connected and Enabled Communities school services be added as a significant contributor to this goal.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Strategic Framework;

2 Adopts the Strategic Framework which incorporates the following changes requested at the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 deliberations:

(a) That the community outcome Connected Communities is renamed to Connected and Enabled Communities

(b) That a new goal - Supporting community organisations to achieve equitable community outcomes - be included in the Connected and Enabled Communities outcome area;

3 Refers the development of the prioritisation framework to the Strategy and Policy Committee;

4 Confirms the decision has a medium level of significance as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council has identified and assessed different options and considered community views as part of making the decision, in proportion to the level of significance.

Macmillan/Iti

CARRIED

5.4

Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Adoption

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer, Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager, Leon Pieterse (Audit NZ) and Warren Goslett (Audit NZ)

Please refer to the Declarations of Conflicts of Interest listed at the beginning of these minutes.

Key Points:

· Noted addendum 1 and 2, which related to climate change additional disclosures, and changes to NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi funding as advised in their letter to Council of 6 June 2024.

· Office of the Auditor General had considered both and directed Audit NZ to work with Councils to incorporate the changes into their Long Term Plans (LTP).

· With regards to the NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi funding, their letter of 6 June meant that the amount of subsidy funding in the LTP had been reduced, resulting in a material variance. Changes had been made to accommodate the change in the budget leading to a $5 million drawdown of reserves over first three years of the LTP. This would reduce the shortfall to an amount below the threshold for audit materiality, which had been agreed with Audit NZ.

· There were no impacts to any of the rating categories. A table of detailed implications of changes was included. No prudential benchmarks had been impacted in terms of meeting their limits. Council had a balanced budget for all 10 years of LTP having taken into account these changes.

· Audit NZ confirmed that they were comfortable with the changes and issued a clean audit opinion. Audit New Zealand noted the constructive and proactive working relationship with Council staff. This responsive approach from staff was a key contributor to Audit being comfortable issuing a clean audit opinion.

9.52 am – Cr Shirley withdrew from the meeting.

9.53 am – Cr Shirley entered the meeting.

In Response to Questions:

· The changes did not preclude changes to the Level of Services; however, the changes outlined related to funding only. Councillors could still consider in-year changes for year one.

· Not all Councils treated the issue of NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi funding in the same way. For some, this would mean that they received a qualified audit opinion.

· With regards to using the reserve fund from targeted rates, subsequent Annual Plan processes could look at, and consult on, public transport options, including reconsidering service levels and fare structures.

· “Before the Deluge” pending announcement: no further information on this potential funding was available at this stage, awaiting confirmation on how funding would be distributed to Councils

· Funding for the Ohau wall was included in year two, but could be brought forward. An engineering advisory group had already been set up to repair the wall, funded through the LTP.

· Councillors asked to see proposed responses to submitters to the LTP. All submitters would receive a response outlining how submissions were considered in the development of the final LTP. Responses were expected to be out by the end of July, and these would be shared with Councillors beforehand.

Key Points - Members:

· Noted a potential new park in Rotorua. This would be added to a section into parks asset management plan.

· Thanked Audit NZ for the timely manner in providing audit opinion – acknowledged pragmatic approach, and constructive working relationship.

· Thanked staff for the significant amount of work that has gone into the adoption of the Long Term Plan.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Long Term Plan 2024-2034 – Adoption;

2 Notes that the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 has been subject to an audit process;

3 Adopts the Asset Management Plans and Asset Management Plan Summaries which are supporting documents for the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 and include:

(i) Strategic Asset Management Plan

(ii) Rivers & Drainage Asset Management and Executive Summary

(iii) Maritime Asset Management Plan and Summary

(iv) Regional Parks and Coastal Catchments Asset Management Plan and Summary

(v) Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Asset Management Plan and Summary

(vi) Property Asset Management Plan and Summary;

4 Authorises the Chair to sign the Audit New Zealand Letter of Representation on behalf of Council;

5 Receives the Audit New Zealand audit opinion on the Long Term Plan 2024 – 2034;

6 Receives the Tabled Documents Addendum one and two to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Adoption Report and adopts the Long Term Plan 2024 – 2034, including addendum one and two, to come into effect 1 July 2024, comprising:

(a) Volume One including:

(i) Strategic Framework

(ii) Community Outcomes

(iii) Statement of Service Performance

(iv) Development of Māori capacity to contribute to decision making

(b) Volume Two including:

(i) Financial Strategy

(ii) Infrastructure Strategy

(iii) Prospective Financial Statement

(iv) Accounting Policies

(v) Council Controlled Organisations

(vi) Funding Impact Statement

(vii) Revenue and Financing Policy

(viii) Rates Funding Impact Statement

(ix) Significant Forecasting Assumptions

(x) Significant Negative Effects

7 Notes that all submitters to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 will receive a letter outlining Council’s key decisions in relation to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 during July 2024;

8 Delegates to the Chief Executive the ability to make minor editorial changes to the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 and supporting documentation before publication;

9 Confirms the decision has a medium level of significance as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council has identified and assessed different options and considered community views as part of making the decision, in proportion to the level of significance.

Winters/Macmillan

CARRIED

Cr Crosby and Cr White abstained from voting on all resolutions.

5.5

Adoption of Fees and Charges Policy

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer and Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager

Key Points:

· Summarised changes to the fees and charges policy in line with direction from deliberations.

In Response to Questions:

· Regarding navigation safety fees, it was noted that there was a process underway to review the bylaws. Any changes recommended by the Bay of Plenty Navigation Safety Bylaws Review Hearings Panel would be considered during the next annual plan.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Adoption of Fees and Charges Policy;

2 Notes that Council has followed the Local Government Act 2002 Special Consultative Procedure in preparing and consulting on the proposed changes to the Fees and Charges Policy and that Council has considered the submissions received;

3 Adopts the Fees and Charges Policy (Attachment 1) and sets the Fees and Charges accordingly with effect from 1 July 2024;

4 Approves that the fees in Schedule 7 of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2017 are updated as proposed, and that all other fees, charges and penalties in the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2017 remain in force;

5 Delegates to the Chief Executive to make minor editorial and formatting changes to the Fees and Charges Policy if required.

Crosby/von Dadelszen

CARRIED

5.6

Adoption of Rates Remission Policies

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer and Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager

Key Points:

· Drew attention to section 2, which set out what had been implemented following direction of deliberations meeting.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Adoption of Rates Remission Policies;

2 Notes that Council has consulted on the draft Rates Remission and Postponement Policy (All Land) and draft Rates Remission and Postponement Policy for Māori Freehold Land and has followed the Local Government Act 2002 section 82 Principles of Consultation, and section 83 Special Consultative Procedure, in preparing and consulting on the policies;

3 Adopts the following policies, effective from 1 July 2024:

(a) Rates Remission and Postponement Policy - All Land, (Attachment 1)

(b) Rates Remission and Postponement Policy for Māori Freehold Land, (Attachment 2);

4 Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to make minor editorial changes, if necessary.

Iti/Macmillan

CARRIED

5.7

Adoption of Development Contributions or Financial Contributions Policy

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer and Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager

Key Points:

· Noted that one submission was considered as part of deliberations with no substantive changes made to the policy.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Adoption of Development Contributions or Financial Contributions Policy;

2 Adopts the Development Contributions or Financial Contributions Policy (Attachment 1).

Crosby/von Dadelszen

CARRIED

5.8

Setting Rates for 2024/2025

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer, Ange Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager and Mark Le Comte - Principal Advisor, Finance

In Response to Questions:

· The collection of rates from 2021/22 year in the Executive Summary of the report related to uncollected rates from prior financial years, which needed to be reflected until they were resolved or collected.

· Clarification around the cumulative effect of the targeted rate in Rotorua Lakes dropping from 50 percent to zero over three years from 2025/26 would be provided to Councillors and clearly communicated to affected households.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Setting Rates for 2024/2025;

1 Notes that Council’s consultation on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034, which used the special consultative procedure, included the funding impact statement as part of the supporting documentation;

2 Confirms that the amounts of the rates specified in the rate tables of the resolutions below, for the financial year 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, includes Council’s Goods and Services Tax component;

3 Confirms that the rates for the financial year 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 are set and assessed in accordance with the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, as follows;

4 Sets a general rate based on land value, calculated as a rate in the dollar of the rateable land value of each rateable rating unit in the region. The general rate is set in accordance with Section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. The rate in the dollar is different according to the location of the land within each district and city constituency as land values are equalised. The general rate is set as follows:

5 Sets a uniform annual general charge as a fixed amount per rating unit on all rateable land in the region. The uniform annual general charge is set in accordance with Section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act as follows:

6 Sets targeted rates for the Kaituna Catchment Control Scheme. The targeted rates are set differentially in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for all rateable land situated in the Kaituna Catchment Control Scheme area within the Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty and Rotorua constituent districts. The categories of rateable land have been defined based on where the land is situated.

The two targeted rates are set as follows:

(a) Where the land is situated, and calculated using the area of land of each rating category within the rating unit,

(b) Where the land is situated and calculated as a fixed amount based on the rating category within which the rating unit is situated.

7 Sets a targeted rate for the Rangitāiki-Tarawera Rivers Scheme. The targeted rate is set differentially in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for all rateable land situated in the Rangitāiki-Tarawera Rivers Scheme catchment within the Whakatāne, Kawerau, Rotorua and Taupō constituent districts.

The targeted rate is set based on where the land is situated, and calculated using the area of land of each rating category within the rating unit as follows:

8 Sets targeted rates for the Whakatāne-Tauranga Rivers Scheme. The targeted rates are set differentially in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for all rateable land situated in the Whakatane-Tauranga Rivers Scheme catchment within the Whakatane constituent district. The categories of rateable land have been defined based on where the land is situated.

The two targeted rates are set as follows;

(a) Where the land is situated, and calculated using the area of land of each rating category within the rating unit,

(b) Where the land is situated and calculated as a fixed amount based on the rating category within which the rating unit is situated.

9 Sets targeted rates for the Waioeka-Otara Rivers Scheme. The targeted rates are set differentially in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for all rateable land situated in the Waioeka-Otara Rivers Scheme catchment within the Opotiki constituent district. The categories of rateable land have been defined based on where the land is situated.

The two targeted rates are set as follows;

(a) Where the land is situated, and calculated using the area of land of each rating category within the rating unit,

(b) Where the land is situated and calculated as a fixed amount based on the rating category within which the rating unit is situated.

10 Sets a targeted rate for the Rangitāiki Drainage Rating Area. The targeted rate is set differentially in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act for all rateable land situated in the defined Rangitāiki Drainage Rating Area situated on the Rangitāiki Plains within the Whakatāne constituent district.

The targeted rate is set based on where the land is situated, and calculated using the area of land of each rating category within the rating unit as follows:

11 Sets a targeted rate for Passenger Transport. The targeted rate is set differentially in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act as an amount per rating unit on all rateable properties within the defined boundaries of Tauranga City, Urban Rotorua, Western Bay District and Whakatāne District.

The passenger transport targeted rate is set based on where the rateable unit is situated as follows:

12 Sets a targeted rate for the Rotorua Lakes Programme. The targeted rate is set differentially in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act as an amount per rating unit on all rateable properties within the Rotorua constituent district.

The Rotorua Lakes programme targeted rate is set based on the area of land within the rating unit as follows.

13 Sets a targeted rate for Rotorua Air Clean Heat Conversion. The targeted rate is set differentially in accordance with Section 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act as an amount per rating unit within the defined boundary of Rotorua Air shed area who have received loans from the Regional Council for installing cleaner heat alternatives.

The Rotorua Air Clean Heat Conversion targeted rate is set as follows:

14 Sets a targeted rate for Civil Defence Emergency Management. The targeted rate is set differentially in accordance with Section 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act based on where the rating unit is situated as an amount per rating unit on all rateable properties within the Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty and Whakatāne constituent districts.

The Civil Defence Emergency Management targeted rate is set as follows:

15 Sets a targeted rate for Regional Safety and Rescue Services. The targeted rate is set differentially in accordance with Section 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act based on where a rating unit is situated as an amount per rating unit on all rateable properties within the Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty and Whakatāne constituent districts.

The regional safety and rescue service targeted rate is set as follows:

16 Sets targeted rates for the Minor River and Drainage Schemes. The targeted rates are set differentially in accordance with Section 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act for all rateable land situated in the defined communal pumped drainage and defined minor river and drainage schemes areas.

The Council sets one targeted rate for each scheme based on where the land is situated and calculated using the area of land within the rating unit as follows:

Ōpōtiki

Rangitāiki Plains

17 Sets targeted rates uniformly in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for all rateable land situated in the defined drainage and defined Minor River and Drainage Schemes areas.

The targeted rates are set as based on where the land is situated and calculated using the land area within the rating unit as follows:

18 Sets the due date for all rates for the 2024/25 rating year as 20 October 2024;

19 Sets the following penalties regime for all rates

(i) Pursuant to sections 57 and 58(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, with respect to rates assessed in respect of the 2024/25 year, a penalty of 10% will be added to the amount of the rates that has been assessed after 1 July 2024 and which is unpaid after the due date set out in section 19. The penalty will be added on the penalty date of 31 October 2024.

20 Sets the following additional penalties regime for past years’ rates: 

(i) Pursuant to sections 57 and 58(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, with respect to rates assessed between 1 July 2022 and 1 July 2024, a penalty of 10% will be added on any rates that remain unpaid on 1 July 2024. The penalty will be added on 8 July 2024.

(ii) Pursuant to sections 57 and 58(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, with respect to rates assessed before 1 July 2022, for rating units in Tauranga City, a penalty of 10% will be added on any rates that remain unpaid on 1 July 2024. The penalty will be added on 8 July 2024.

(iii) Pursuant to sections 57 and 58(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, with respect to rates assessed before 1 July 2022, for the Minor River and Drainage Schemes identified in recommendations 17 and 19, a penalty of 10% will be added on any rates that remain unpaid on 1 July 2024. The penalty will be added on 8 July 2024.

(iv) Pursuant to sections 57 and 58(1)(c) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, a further penalty of 10% will be added on any rates to which a penalty has been added under (i), (ii) or (iii) if the rates remain unpaid six months after the previous penalty was added on 8 July 2024. The penalty will be added on 9 January 2025.

21 Appoints in accordance with section 53 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 the constituent district and city councils of the Bay of Plenty region, i.e. Kawerau District Council, Ōpōtiki District Council, Rotorua District Council, Taupō District Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Whakatāne District Council, to collect the rates assessed by Bay of Plenty Regional Council for the years prior to and including 2021/22 which remain unpaid, excluding rates for the Minor River and Drainage Schemes as identified in recommendations 17 and 18.

22 Sets the following additional penalties regime for rates to be collected under recommendation 22;

(i) Pursuant to sections 57 and 58(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, with respect to rates assessed before 1 July 2022, a penalty of 10% for all areas in the table below other than the Kawerau District and 3% for the Kawerau District will be added to any rates unpaid on 1 July 2024. The penalty will be added on the date shown below.

District	Penalty Application Date
Kawerau	4 July 2024
Rotorua	5 July 2024
Western Bay of Plenty	3 July 2024
Whakatāne	1 October 2024

(ii) Pursuant to sections 57 and 58(1)(c) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, with respect to rates assessed before 1 July 2022, a further penalty of 10% for Rotorua District and Western Bay of Plenty District, and 3% for the Kawerau District will be added on any rates to which a penalty has been added under recommendation 23(i) if the rates remain unpaid six months after the previous penalty was added. The penalty will be added on the date shown below.

The respective additional penalty dates are as follows;

District	Penalty Application Date
Kawerau	6 January 2025
Rotorua	10 January 2025
Western Bay of Plenty	6 January 2025

Winters/Thurston

CARRIED

5.9

Chairperson's Report

Presented by: Chair Leeder

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Chairperson's Report.

Leeder/White

CARRIED

5.10

Adoption of the 2024-2034 Bay of Plenty Regional Land Transport Plan

Presented by: Oliver Haycock – Director, Public Transport

Key Points:

· Councillor Thurston, as Chair of Regional Transport Committee, outlined the process to produce the plan and the challenges throughout. Plan needed to be with NZTA by 1 August 2024.

· Noted the focus on the Western Bay of Plenty.

· Acknowledged Elected Members, staff and stakeholders for their contributions.

In Response to Questions:

· Confirmed that this plan included contributions from the recently announced ‘pothole recovery fund’, and all other national funding streams.

· With regards to the emissions reductions target in objective two and whether it was realistic , it was noted that it was important to be able to track progress against ambitious targets.

Key Points - Members:

· Members acknowledged the work of Councillor Thurston in leading this work.

· Members noted vast improvements of quality of State Highway 2 between Opotiki and Gisborne.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Adoption of the 2024-2034 Bay of Plenty Regional Land Transport Plan ;

2 Adopts the 2024-2034 Bay of Plenty Regional Land Transport Plan, including the prioritised programme of significant activities, for the purpose of submission to the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi, based on Regional Transport Committee endorsement (Attachment 1);

3 Agrees that final corrections (limited to grammatical / typographical errors and necessary updates to financial information) before document submission can be delegated to the Director, Public Transport;

4 Congratulates BOPRC staff and staff from across the region, past and present, for their contribution to this piece of work.

Thurston/Scott

CARRIED

5.11

Ko Wai Matōu Project - The Catalyst Group

Presented by: Margaret Courtney – Senior Advisor (via Zoom)

In Response to Questions:

· $195,000 funding had been confirmed for the framework agreement was funded by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).

· The funding difference between the grant and contract amount was to be used for the framework agreement and other ancillary costs, including health and safety training and other minor matters.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Ko Wai Matōu Project - The Catalyst Group;

2 Accepts the procurement plan with The Catalyst Group for the project on behalf of the Ko Wai Matōu project team;

3 Delegates to the Chief Executive the ability to sign the contract for services with the Catalyst Group including any variations and approve payments.

McDonald/Macmillan

CARRIED

5.12

Extension of Operator contracts: Northern Corridor, Waihī (Route 85) and Rotorua

Presented by: Oliver Haycock – Director, Public Transport

Key Points:

· Proposed contract extensions were to recognise the change of government and to give adequate time to get contracts right through this change.

· Detailed reasons for each contract extension was outlined.

In Response to Questions:

· Provided clarification that the current resolution with regards to the Northern Service formalised the extension to 30 June 2026 (as opposed to February 2026).

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Extension of Operator contracts: Northern Corridor, Waihī (Route 85) and Rotorua;

2 Approves the extension of the three contracts as outlined in Section 2. of this report;

3 Notes that associated funding has been included in the Annual Plan 2023 – 2024 and the draft Long-Term Plan 2024-2034;

4 Approves the procurement plan to extend the contracts with existing suppliers;

5 Delegates to the Chief Executive the ability to sign the contracts for services with Ritchies, Uzabus and Kiwi Kabs including any variations and approve payments.

von Dadelszen/Thurston

CARRIED

5.13

Acting Chief Executive

In Response to Questions:

· The Chief Executive confirmed that only one General Manager would be taking a week’s leave over July, so there would be good coverage in the Chief Executive’s absence.

Resolved

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Acting Chief Executive;

2 Appoints Reuben Francis Fraser, General Manager Regulatory Services, as Acting Chief Executive for the period 27 June 2024 to 21 July 2024 (inclusive), during a period of leave for the Chief Executive.

von Dadelszen/Nees

CARRIED

6. Public Excluded Section

Resolved

Resolution to exclude the public

1 Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting as set out 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:

Item No.	Subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Grounds under Section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	When the item can be released into the public
6.1	Public Excluded Regional Council Minutes - 9 May 2024	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	To remain in public excluded.
6.2	Ambient Air Quality Services Procurement	Withholding the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.	48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(b)(ii).	On the Chief Executive's approval.

Leeder/Thurston

CARRIED

7. Closing Karakia

A karakia was provided by Cr Te Taru white.

10:35 am – the meeting closed.

Confirmed

Chairman Doug Leeder

Chairperson, Regional Council

Date	Meeting / Engagement	Comment
19 June	Visit to Ngāi Tamawhariua at Te Rereatukāhia Marae - Katikati	Attended with Councillor Matemoana McDonald. Discussed the proposed Regional Park at Hot Springs Road, Katikati and Ngāi Tamawhariua’s future involvement once there is a process and programme to move forward on developing the land.
26 June	Waikato Regional Council Stakeholder Survey – Telephone	Provided feedback to Waikato Regional Council on engagement experiences with them.
2 – 3 July	Primary Industries New Zealand Summit – Wellington	Invited to join a Panel discussing Local Government collaboration and innovation for a thriving Primary Sector.
4 July	Te Herenga o Te Rā BBQ Lunch - Opotiki	A celebration of the completion of solar farm piling.
5 July	Public Excluded Bay of Plenty Mayoral Forum Briefing – Video conference	Attended.
10 July	Regular Catchup Meeting with Te Arawa Lakes Trust (TALT) Chairman Geoff Rolleston and CEO Dr Daryn Bean – Rotorua	BOPRC Acting CEO Reuben Fraser also in attendance.
Wai Kokopu Event: Vision for the Bay – Our Farming Future – Our Catchments - Te Puke	An opportunity for local landowners and farmers to connect, discuss and respond to the pressures facing farming systems. Damien O’Connor, Labour spokesperson on trade and foreign affairs, was one of the guest speakers at the event.
16 July	Te Uru Kahika (Regional and Unitary Councils Aotearoa) Pre-meeting for Select Committee hearing on the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – Video conference	Preparation for the Select Committee hearing on 17 July.
17 July	Select Committee Hearing on Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – Video conference	Spoke to Te Uru Kahika’s submission on the Bill.
Lets Talk Law and Order, with Minister for the Police, Corrections and Emergency Management Mark Mitchell - Whakatane	Invited to attend by host, National’s East Coast MP Dana Kirkpatrick. The key speaker Minister Mitchell spoke about the Government’s approach to law and order, what he sees for communities like the East Coast, and how the Government will support a tougher approach on crime.
19 July	Regional Development Minister, Hon Shane Jones visit to Kawerau for the Official Opening of the Kawerau Off-Highway Road - Kawerau	Attended.



Report To:	Regional Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Writer:	Mark Le Comte, Principal Advisor, Finance; Gillian Payne, Principal Advisor and Kumaren Perumal, Chief Financial Officer
Report Authoriser:	Mat Taylor, General Manager, Corporate
Purpose:	For Council to receive the Statements of Intent for the Quayside Group

Statement of Intent for Quayside Group, including Toi Moana Trust

Executive Summary

This report presents the Quayside Holdings Group Statements of Intent (SOI) for 2024-2027, which includes information for the Toi Moana Trust.

So far, the process has included:

· Council’s statement of expectations for the Quayside Holdings Limited and the Toi Moana Trust

· Council consideration of the draft SOIs

· The Quayside Board considering Council’s feedback on the draft SOIs.

This paper presents the SOI for the Quayside Group (Quayside), Attachment 2. A covering letter (Attachment 1) provides context and addresses the matters raised by Council through this process.

The legislative requirement is that the completed SOIs must be adopted by the Quayside Board and delivered to the shareholder by 30 June 2024, and this requirement was met. Council is not required to adopt the SOI.

Quayside has prepared its SOI on the assumption that it will continue to hold 54.14% Port of Tauranga Limited (PoTL). Through adoption of its Long Term Plan 2024-2034, on 26 June 2024, Council has enabled a sale of PoTL shares, but a decision to sell has yet to be made. Once Council has taken advice, it expects to decide on principles and parameters that should apply to any sale of PoTL shares and direct Quayside to amend this SOI accordingly.

Recommendations

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Statement of Intent for Quayside Group, including Toi Moana Trust;

2 Agrees that no further formal feedback is required, at present, on the Quayside Group Statements of Intent.

1. Introduction

Quayside Holdings Limited (QHL) is a Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) which includes several subsidiaries. A CCTO is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) that operates to make a profit.

Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act (2002), (LGA), requires Council Controlled Organisations to deliver to shareholders their completed Statements of Intent (SOI) before the financial year to which it relates.

1.1 Legislative Framework

The requirements and process for completing the SOI is set in the LGA sections 64, 64A, 64B and Schedule 8.

Council may, by resolution, require a CCO Board to make changes to the SOI. Before making such a resolution Council must consult with the CCO Board.

1.2 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Vibrant Region	We invest appropriately in infrastructure to support sustainable development.
The Way We Work	We deliver value to our ratepayers and our customers.

Role of Quayside

QHL manages Council’s major financial investments to achieve a return on funds invested. The income, in the form of dividends from QHL and the Toi Moana Trust (TMT), is an important part of Council’s financial strategy and reduces the general rates requirement.

The balance of investment income is used to grow the investment portfolio to provide intergenerational benefits that will contribute to future wellbeing.

Quayside also raised $200 million through the Perpetual Preference Share (PPS) issue, the proceeds of which have been used for Council projects. Quayside pays dividends to the PPS shareholders.

In addition, QHL is leading the development of Rangiuru Business Park as a project which will provide significant regional benefit.

1.2.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

¨ Environmental

¨ Cultural

¨ Social

þ Economic

Medium - Positive

2. Quayside Group Statement of Intent

This report completes the Council process for the Quayside Group SOI. To date, this has included:

• Council’s statement of expectations for QHL and TMT (December 2023)

• Council consideration of the draft Quayside Group SOI (April 2024) and provision of feedback (1 May 2024)

• The QHL Board considering Council’s feedback on the draft SOI and approving the final SOI (June 2024).

QHL has sent a covering letter (Attachment 1) and final SOI for the Quayside Group, (Attachment 2). The information relating to TMT is on page 15 of Attachment 2.

There are no significant differences between the QHL final SOI and the draft SOI which was received by Council on 24 April 2024. Matters raised by Council in its feedback on the draft SOI have been addressed in the covering letter from the QHL Chair.

Port of Tauranga investment

Shares in Port of Tauranga Limited (PoTL) are strategic assets in terms of Local Government Act (LGA) section 5 which means that no PoTL shares can be sold without Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) explicitly providing for such a decision (LGA s97). Through its recently adopted LTP 2024-2034, Council has met the requirements of LGA s97 and enabled the sell down of PoTL shareholding, to a minimum of 28%.

Council will consider and approve the details of any process that will be followed, including sale conditions of any shares. This may include further consideration of any LTP submissions that commented on the potential sell-down process, engagement with tangata whenua and determination of any imperatives for strategic control.

Once this work is done and decisions are made, Council will be able to provide Quayside with a mandate to plan and implement PoTL transactions. At that time, Council may require Quayside Holdings Limited to alter the Quayside Group Statement of Intent to reflect the decisions. Before resolving to do so, Council must consult with the Quayside Board.

QHL dividends and distribution policy

The forecast dividend for 2024/25 is $47 million which matches Council’s approved LTP budget for that year. The actual dividend will be determined by QHL based on audited results for 2023/24 and there may need to be an additional special dividend to reach the forecast $47 million.

QHL signalled in both the draft and final SOIs their reservations regarding Council’s expectations of dividends over the next three years. QHL highlight the wider market conditions which increase the risk of delivering expected results as well as the trade-off between income in the short term and growth of the investment portfolio which will provide income in the future.

QHL confirms its intention to review its Distribution Policy during 2024/25.

3. Toi Moana Trust

There are no material differences between the information presented for TMT in the final SOI compared to the draft SOI which was received by Council on 24 April 2024.

Dividends of $3.5 million per year are expected for the next three years, 2024/25 to 2026/27, based on $70 million (face value) invested in TMT.

4. Considerations

4.1 Risks and Mitigations

QHL manages a diversified portfolio of investments to mitigate individual investment risks and intends to increase this portfolio diversification if it receives a mandate from Council to sell any PoTL shares. The QHL Distribution Policy, which has a component based on past dividends, shields Council from full exposure to the risk of changing values of the QHL investment portfolios, over the short term.

Council and QHL staff meet regularly to discuss treasury operations and risk management.

4.2 Climate Change

The matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature and there is no need to consider climate change impacts.

4.3 Implications for Māori

The implications for Māori are directly related to rates required and are of a financial nature only. QHL has investments that directly benefit Māori.

4.4 Community Engagement

INFORM

Whakamōhio

To provide affected communities with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives and/or solutions.

The Quayside Group Statement of Intent will be published on Council’s website following this meeting.

4.5 Financial Implications

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget. Actual dividends received from QHL in 2024/25 will be confirmed based on audited results for 2023/24 and there may need to be an additional special dividend to reach the forecast $47 million.

5. Next Steps

Staff will continue to work closely with QHL on group treasury and tax matters, which is business as usual.

Staff will work closely with QHL and expert advisors on developing a mandate for QHL to implement a sell-down of the PoTL portfolio, to a minimum of 28%. This could include:

· Considering feedback from further engagement with tangata whenua;

· Agreeing a process for any sale;

· Developing parameters and conditions of any sale, including considerations of strategic control imperatives;

· Reviews of QHL’s Distribution Policy and their Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Quayside Group SOI 2024/25 - Covering Letter ⇩

Attachment 2 - Quayside Group Final SOI 2024/25 ⇩



Report To:	Regional Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Writer:	Greg Corbett, Biosecurity Manager; Lynda Frew, Legal Counsel (Commercial Lead) and Davor Bejakovich, Wallaby Programme Leader
Report Authoriser:	Chris Ingle, General Manager, Integrated Catchments
Purpose:	Seek Council delegation to enter into agreements to receive funds from partner organisations to implement Wallaby Management across the central North Island.

Wallaby Programme funding agreements for 2024/25

Executive Summary

The Crown, through the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), has contributed significant funding for wallaby management across New Zealand since 2020. To transfer operational funds to regions, MPI negotiated funding agreements with partner Councils. These agreements expired on 30 June 2024 following the end of the first tranche of funding.

Since 2020, Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) and Waikato Regional Council (WRC), with support from Department of Conservation (DOC), agreed to collaborate and jointly deliver wallaby management across the two regions. This relationship is underpinned by a ‘Multi-Party Funding and Collaboration Agreement’ that supports the transfer of funds from WRC to BOPRC and the BOPRC administration of wallaby management across both regions.

Crown funding for wallaby management has now been ‘base-lined’ through MPI and the Ministry is wishing to enter into new agreements with partner regions to support operational work in 2024/25. This new agreement will have flow-on effects for the BOPRC/WRC/DOC agreement, which will also need amending.

The total value of funding to be received and administered by BOPRC, through these agreements, will exceed staff delegations and Council’s approval is sought to execute the new MPI agreement and amend the BOPRC/WRC/DOC agreement. The new agreement is fiscally neutral for BOPRC biosecurity budgets.

Recommendations

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Wallaby Programme funding agreements for 2024/25;

2 Notes that Bay of Plenty Regional Council administers wallaby management across the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions;

3 Delegates to the Chief Executive the ability to approve and execute a Service Agreement with the Ministry for Primary Industries to deliver the central North Island component of the National Wallaby Eradication Programme for 2024/25 and any variations to that Service Agreement;

4 Delegates to the Chief Executive the ability to approve and execute any variations to the Multi-Party Funding and Collaboration Agreement, with Waikato Regional Council and Department of Conservation, to manage transfer of funds and resources to support the implementation of wallaby management activities across the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions;

5 Notes the National Wallaby Eradication Programme Governance Group has approved funding of $2.55m (inclusive of council funding) for wallaby management within the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions, pending confirmation by the Ministry for Primary Industries;

6 Notes Council’s contribution to the National Wallaby Eradication Programme is $300,000 plus in-kind support of 3 FTE.

1. Introduction

In 2020 the Crown provided $27.4m, over four years, to support the establishment and implementation of the National Wallaby Eradication Programme as part of the ‘Jobs for Nature’ budget. Following this funding announcement in 2020, Waikato and Bay of Plenty regional councils, with support from Department of Conservation (DOC), decided to take a species-led, ‘tenure neutral’ approach to wallaby management. This resulted a single coordinated wallaby management programme across the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions that applies to both Crown and private lands. Both BOPRC and WRC contribute funding, on top of money allocated from MPI, to support regional operations and DOC provides in-kind support across the central North Island. All central North Island wallaby funding is administered through BOPRC.

Funding agreements with the Crown (MPI) and our partner organisations (WRC and DOC) were developed and provide for the transfer of money to BOPRC. The funding agreement with MPI, which was linked to the Jobs for Nature funding, expired on 30 June 2024, and a new agreement is needed to support further funding from the Crown. Likewise, the Multi-Party Funding and Collaboration Agreement with WRC and DOC will need to be amended to support ongoing funding contributions from WRC and any new requirements from MPI.

1.1 Legislative Framework

The National Wallaby Eradication Programme delivers the non-statutory Tipu Matoro Wallaby-Free Aotearoa strategy. Crown funding provided through this programme provides significant support for the delivery of regional pest management plans for the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions.

1.2 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Healthy Environment	We develop and implement regional plans and policy to protect our natural environment.
A Vibrant Region	We work with and connect the right people to create a prosperous region and economy.
The Way We Work	We look to partnerships for best outcomes.

Work enabled through these agreements helps protect the natural environment and economy by preventing the expansion of wallaby browsing impacts on forests and primary industries.

As pests do not respect administrative boundaries, we need to collaborate with the key partners and landowners/managers to deliver effective wallaby management.

1.2.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

High - Positive

þ Cultural

Medium - Positive

þ Social

High - Positive

þ Economic

Medium - Positive

Increased operational spend linked to these agreements will lead to positive environmental benefits by preventing wallaby spread to new areas.

The programme endeavours to engage with mana whenua to protect sites of cultural value and support employment opportunities.

2. New Funding Agreements to Wallaby Programme delivery

2.1 MPI Services Agreement

As mentioned in section 1, Council’s original funding agreement with MPI expired on 30 June 2024 following the end of ‘Jobs for Nature’ funding. Acknowledging that the wallaby problem will take long-term funding to resolve, MPI has secured ‘baseline’ funding of $6.9m per annum to support the ongoing delivery of the wallaby operations. While this funding is now subject to Government confirmation, MPI are indicating funds will be available for the current financial year.

To access funding support from the National Programme staff have worked with colleagues from WRC and DOC to develop an Operational Plan for 2024/25. This Plan has been reviewed by a group of wallaby management experts before being submitted to the National Programme Governance Group for approval. This process has now been completed and $1.75m of Crown funding has been allocated to the Bay of Plenty/Waikato wallaby programme. MPI approval of this allocation is still pending at the time of writing.

To facilitate the transfer of allocated funds from MPI to Council, MPI require a new ‘Services Agreement’ to be executed with Council. Staff have negotiated a new agreement which sets out the terms and conditions of funding. No significant changes from the original agreement have been proposed, though health and safety requirements have been more clearly articulated. The key components of the agreement are:

· The term of the agreement will be one year, as MPI are awaiting Government confirmation of future funding;

· The intended outcome of the agreement is the implementation of the Tipu Matoro Wallaby-Free Aotearoa strategy;

· It requires the preparation of an annual Operational Plan;

· It requires Council to maintain and support a Stakeholder forum (Central North Island Regional Coordination Group);

· It requires Council to implement the approved Operational Plan for the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions;

· It requires Council to comply with reporting requirements;

· It requires Council to comply with health and safety management requirements;

· It requires Council staff to attend management meetings.

As the funding allocation to BOPRC for 2024/25 exceeds staff financial delegations, Council is asked to authorise the Chief Executive to execute this agreement.

2.2 BOPRC/WRC/DOC Multi-Party Funding and Collaboration Agreement

As previously mentioned, BOPRC, WRC, and DOC work in partnership to deliver a seamless wallaby management programme across the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions. Both BOPRC and WRC provide financial contributions to regional wallaby work, and the programme is managed by an ‘inter-agency’ team. BOPRC manages the administration of the joint regional wallaby programme, including contract management. A ‘Multi-Party Funding and Collaboration Agreement’ (Collaboration Agreement) has been adopted to support this arrangement.

This collaboration agreement was aligned to Council’s funding agreement with MPI and technically expired on 30 June 2024. However, there is an option for the term of the agreement to be extended by mutual agreement. The collaboration agreement covers:

· Operational programme governance;

· Operational planning;

· Procurement of services;

· Partner funding and in-kind contributions, and management of funds; and

· Reporting.

It also covers the management of IP, risks (including health and safety), liabilities and disputes.

The Agreement includes an addendum outlining annual partner contributions, which is updated from time to time to reflect changes.

Once a new Services Agreement is finalised between BOPRC and MPI, the Collaboration Agreement will need to be updated to align it and a new contributions addendum inserted confirming partner contributions.

As the total value of external contributions associated with Collaboration Agreement currently exceeds staff delegations, Council approval is needed to enter into a refreshed agreement for 2024/25.

3. Considerations

3.1 Risks and Mitigations

As above, the partners in the Wallaby Management Programme have agreed that is efficient for BOPRC to act as ‘fund-holder’ for wallaby management operations across the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions. As fund holder, BOPRC also acts as procurement lead for the programme and is ultimately accountable for the use of funds received. The key risks are associated with procurement and delivery of operational work, including health and safety. These risks are mitigated through the Collaboration Agreement, which sets out the roles and responsibilities of each party and ensures an appropriate and fair allocation of risk as between the parties.

Both agreements have been reviewed by the BOPRC Legal Team.

All procurement of services will follow Council’s procurement procedures with support from the Legal and Commercial teams. A panel of suppliers to deliver wallaby management was procured and contracted in 2020 pursuant to a Council approved procurement plan. This panel of suppliers has been reviewed and contracts will be extended with suppliers according to the review, the Crown funding available and the National Wallaby Eradication Programme. The contract renewals are consistent with the original Council paper establishing the panel of suppliers.

Regarding health and safety, Council has been working closely with MPI to ensure all risks associated with wallaby management are identified and appropriately managed. Council is part of MPI’s ‘Health and Safety uplift programme’, which aims to ensure both agencies have clarity of the risks associated with wallaby management and joint agreement on how they are mitigated.

3.2 Climate Change

The matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature and there is no need to consider climate change impacts. It is noted however that pest control programmes are considered to be positive from a climate change mitigation perspective. Forest health and vitality is expected to improve with the elimination of exotic browsers, and with reduced browsing pressure, native understory plant species will recover, which helps with carbon sequestration in wallaby infested areas that are being treated via this programme.

3.3 Implications for Māori

These funding agreements will allow the continuation of the National Wallaby Eradication Programme that is strongly supported by Iwi/hapū. Not only is there strong support for wallaby eradication, but also a strong desire to be actively involved in all aspects of the programme, including operational delivery and research. This desire currently exceeds budget constraints.

While the outcome of wallaby eradication is supported, not all control methods are, presenting some operational challenges (e.g., use of aerial 1080).

3.4 Community Engagement

Engagement with the community is not required as the recommended proposal / decision [relates to internal Council matters only].

3.5 Financial Implications

The impact on the Biosecurity Activity budget will be fiscally neutral with operating revenue increasing by up to $2.25m and expenditure increasing by the same amount.

4. Next Steps

If Council adopts the recommendations in this paper, staff will finalise the draft Services Agreement with MPI. Following this, staff will complete amendments to the Multi-Party Funding and Collaboration agreement, including the preparation of a fresh addendum confirming Partner financial and in-kind contributions for the 2024/25 year.

Providing the Government confirms ongoing wallaby funding through MPI, a new agreement will be needed from 1 July 2025.



Report To:	Regional Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Writer:	Lisa Power, Senior Planner; Te Wakaunua Te Kurapa, Biosecurity Officer and Greg Corbett, Biosecurity Manager
Report Authoriser:	Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy and Science Chris Ingle, General Manager, Integrated Catchments
Purpose:	This report is seeking Council approval to notify the Regional Pest Management Plan Review Proposal for consultation.

Regional Pest Management Plan: Partial Review

Executive Summary

The Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) was developed under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). It became fully operative on 17 December 2020 and is the key regional policy document to direct the management of pests in the Bay of Plenty region.

The Act provides for a Council to review an RPMP in part where the plan is failing to meet its objectives or circumstances have changed since the plan commenced. Emerging pest species and RPMP implementation issues were reported to Council on 14 December 2023. At that meeting Council approved a partial review of the RPMP rather than waiting until the RPMP review is due (in 2030).

This report presents the RPMP review and proposes new species to be included in the RPMP with amended and additional rules to manage their spread.

Council must be satisfied there will be adequate funding to implement the RPMP review proposal for at least 5 years. Some review proposals can be absorbed through current resourcing however, two high profile pests proposed for inclusion (Exotic Caulerpa and Corbicula) will require additional resourcing.

Compliance with Biosecurity Act requirements to review an RPMP are comprehensive, requiring a number of sequential steps. Each time Council must be ‘satisfied’ of a matter, careful consideration must be given to that matter and that consideration should be carefully documented necessitating a lengthy report.

The power to make, review, amend or revoke a plan as well as delegation on how consultation will be undertaken can’t be delegated from Council.

Minor amendments are also proposed in this report. These amendments do not need to be consulted on.

Recommendations

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Regional Pest Management Plan: Partial Review;

2 Approves the Regional Pest Management Plan: Review Proposal for notification;

3 Delegates to the General Manager, Strategy and Science the authority to approve any minor changes, including grammatical and formatting, to the Regional Pest Management Plan Review Proposal prior to its release for notification;

4 Notes the Regional Pest Management Plan review proposes Exotic Caulerpa and Corbicula to be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan and this will require decisions on additional funding;

5 Is satisfied the requirements of Sections 70, 71 and 72 (in part) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 have been complied with;

6 Approves the Regional Pest Management Plan Review Proposal consultation approach (section 3.4) to be undertaken as required by section 72(5) of the Biosecurity Act 1993;

7 Approves the approach to summarise, report on and consider submissions on the Regional Pest Management Plan Review;

8 Approves the minor amendments to the Regional Pest Management Review specified in section 2.9 of this report.

1. Introduction

The Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) became fully operative on 17 December 2020 and is the key regional policy document to direct the management of pests in the Bay of Plenty region. The RPMP remains in effect for 10 years after that date.

At its meeting on 4 May 2023, Council approved minor amendments to the RPMP. However, inclusion of new pests and how pests are to be managed does not meet the criteria of a minor amendment under the Biosecurity Act (the Act).

Emerging pest species and RPMP implementation issues were reported to Council on 14 December 2023. At that meeting Council approved a partial review of the RPMP in favour of waiting until the RPMP review by 2030 is due. The approved scope of the partial review was to consider:

· Including all wallaby species known to be in NZ

· Including some conifer species as a pest (whether or not they are in wilding form)

· Potentially changing the pest programme Phytopthora agathicida (formerly known as kauri dieback)

· Tightening the rules around management (and in some cases abandonment) of kiwifruit orchards

· Including emerging pests (Exotic Caulerpa and all species of Corbicula)

· Including myrtle rust (previously considered for inclusion)

· Reviewing RPMP provisions that manage woolly nightshade (especially with regard to complaint response).

The Group Manager Strategy and Science was delegated the ability to expand the partial review scope if a new pest issue arose during the review. Under this delegation, staff are proposing to consider introduced turtles for RPMP inclusion (see section 2.6).

1.1 Legislative Framework

The Act provides for a Council to review an RPMP in part where the plan is failing to meet its objectives or circumstances have changed since the plan commenced (section 100D). This report sets out which circumstances have changed and recommends a proposed policy response.

Putting the amended RPMP into effect, requires sequential steps as set out in the Act (sections 70 to 75). Each time Council must be ‘satisfied’ of a matter, careful consideration must be given to that matter and that consideration should be carefully documented. This will be done through Council reporting processes.

Relevant sections from the Act that provide for a plan review are set out in full in Attachment One along with commentary on how those sections have been complied with. The table below steps out decision points required by Council or, where possible, by Committee (i.e. within delegations). Decisions made on this report will support the fulfilment of sections 70, 71 and part of section 72 of the Act (down to the dotted line in Table 1).

Table 1: Steps required to make an RPMP and recommended decision points

Act Requirements

Decision Points

Section 70

First Step: Plan Review Initiated by Proposal

Regional Council

Plan initiated by Review (Amended RPMP)

Due to the limited scope of the review, in accordance with section 100D(5)(d) of the Act, section 70 of the Act has been applied in this Proposal only in so far as it relates to the specific proposed programme changes.

The Section 70 assessment is provided in Attachment One.

Section 71

Second Step: Satisfaction of Requirements

Regional Council

Satisfaction of requirements.

The Section 71 assessment is provided in Attachment One.

Section 72

Third Step: Satisfaction with consultation

Regional Council

Section 100H, Council must not delegate the power to determine the ways in which consultation must be undertaken.

Section 3.4 of this report includes recommendations on how consultation will be undertaken.

Strategy and Policy Committee

Satisfaction there has been adequate consultation

If Committee is not satisfied, Council must determine ways further consultation should be undertaken.

Section 73

Fourth Step: Approval of Preparation of Plan

Strategy and Policy Committee

Committee to consider staff report on submissions and make recommendations to Council

Section 74

Fifth Step: Satisfaction on contents of Plan and requirements

Strategy and Policy Committee

All considerations and recommendations on submissions should be documented and prepared as recommendations to Council

Section 75

Sixth Step: Decision on Plan

Regional Council

Recommendations from the Committee will be considered at a Regional Council meeting and then adopted as the Regional Council’s decision under section 75.

2. Regional Pest Management Plan: Partial Review

Amendments to the RPMP being proposed through this partial plan review can be summarised as:

· No changes to the objectives and principal measures to achieve the objectives in the RPMP

· All wallaby species known to be in NZ are included in the RPMP

· Progressive containment conifer species are included as pests in any form (planted, plantation and wilding)

· Exotic Caulerpa and all species of Corbicula are included as exclusion pests in the RPMP

· New rule to manage spread of marine pests (not already covered by existing rules)

· Amended rule to better manage spread of freshwater pests

· Introduced turtles are included as sustained control pests

· Clarification on how sustained control rules will be implemented (through rule explanation).

The context for proposing change and the recommended policy response is set out for each pest. The proposed amendments are set out in redline strikeout format in Attachment Two. Cost benefit and risk assessment is required to support the inclusion of each new pest. These are collated and provided in Supporting Document One.

2.1 Consideration of financial implications

Under the Act, Council must be satisfied there will be adequate funding to implement the RPMP (including RPMP review proposal) for at least 5 years.^{^[2]}

The inclusion and management of all wallaby species, introduced turtles, and pest conifers can be absorbed through current resourcing. However, two high profile pests proposed for inclusion - Exotic Caulerpa and Corbicula - will require additional resourcing. For these two pests the estimated cost to undertake adequate surveillance and ensure compliance with associated rules is $280,000 per annum. This figure does not include resourcing for an incursion response.

While some monitoring is currently occurring for these two species, by approving this RPMP review for notification, Council is effectively signalling that it will allocate increased funding to support implementation. Following decisions at this meeting, staff will explore how this funding is best secured – either by reprioritisation of existing pest management activity or through the next annual plan process. Advice on this will be provided back to Council as part of the RPMP adoption process. Council may wish to signal which option is preferred.

2.2 Wallabies

Existing policy framework

The RPMP includes the ‘known’ Dama species of wallaby as both Eradication and Progressive Containment programme pests. A map is included in the RPMP showing which programme applies to different parts of the region.

Under the RPMP, Council maintains control and management of wallabies (regardless of their programme). There are no responsibilities for landowners/occupiers to manage wallabies on their land. However, there is a generic rule that manages human actions (from all persons) that distribute, move, spread and maintain all pests included in the RPMP.

Issue and proposed response

A second species of wallaby (Parma) has been confirmed in our region.

As current RPMP provisions only apply to Dama wallabies, it would be lawful to keep or feed a Parma (or any other) wallaby. To address this situation, staff recommend all wallaby species known to be in New Zealand - Bennett’s wallaby, Brush-tailed rock wallaby, Parma wallaby, Swamp wallaby and Dama wallaby - are included in the RPMP.

The assumption is the cost benefit assessment to support the current RPMP and allocation of costs remains relevant. Council already has a wallaby management programme in place and until recently assumed all species in the Bay of Plenty were Dama and therefore managed all wallabies to meet RPMP objectives. Including all species is consistent with the neighbouring Waikato’s RPMP.

2.3 Conifer Species

Existing policy framework

The RPMP includes a list of conifer species under the definition of wilding conifer. Five of those species are in the progressive containment pest programme and the remainder are included as sustained control pests.

The destruction of progressive containment species of wilding conifer (Contorta pine, Scots pine, Dwarf mountain pine, Mountain pine and European larch) is required (Rule 3). This rule places pest management responsibility on occupiers. However, there is provision for pest management agreements as a more pragmatic alternative approach. For sustained control species a good neighbour approach is supported in that if one neighbour is actively managing a plant pest (in this case conifer), their efforts should not be undermined by the inaction of their neighbours (Rule 5). There is also a rule that ensures new infestations of wilding conifers are prevented at sites where wilding conifers have previously been destroyed through publicly funded control operations (Rule 9).

Pinus Contorta is the only conifer species that is declared an unwanted organism under the Act and therefore it can’t be deliberately planted.

Issue and proposed response

The progressive containment conifer species are not known to be commercially grown in the Bay of Plenty and have little economic value (noting they may have been grown for other reasons such as shelterbelts and shade for animals). This set of conifers has a high risk of spreading and staff consider they need to be managed whether or not they are in ‘wilding’ form. Pinus contorta in particular, is the most invasive introduced conifer species. It can be difficult to successfully control or manage the spread of wilding conifers over the long term if the seed source is not removed or appropriately managed and contained.

Staff recommend the conifer species currently listed as progressive containment pests in the RPMP are included as pests in their own right (rather than being limited to ‘wilding’ form). These will be referred to collectively as pest conifers. This proposal would effectively prohibit new plantings of these species. Following consultation with Scion and forestry companies, staff are not aware of any deliberately planted progressive containment conifer species in the region. If they do exist, this proposal enables regulatory control requiring removal of these species. Support for occupiers to remove these species is available. The costs to implement this proposal are minimal yet there is benefit in managing future seed sources.

The recommended changes the capture of the rules but not the actual rules.

2.4 Exotic Caulerpa

Existing policy framework

When the RPMP was developed, Exotic Caulerpa (a marine pest plant) had not been detected in NZ and therefore was not considered for inclusion in the RPMP. It is now confirmed as being present and spreading in NZ.

Biosecurity New Zealand (MPI) have attempted to manage the risk of spread by imposing Controlled Area Notices (CAN), a regulatory tool under the Act. These place legal restrictions on anchoring and vessel movement within infested areas. However, it would seem these measures have not been fully effective.

Currently Rules 1 and 2 may help reduce the risk of Caulerpa spread by default as they require good boat hygiene but they do not target Caulerpa and there are more vectors of spread than just hull fouling and aquaculture equipment.

Issue and proposed response

Caulerpa was first detected in New Zealand at Aotea (Great Barrier Island) in 2021. Since that time, it has been subsequently found at Ahuahu (Great Mercury Island), the Bay of Islands, at various sites within the Hauraki Gulf (Leigh, Kawau Island, Mokohinau Islands, Waiheke Island and Rakino Island) and at Fantail Bay on the Coromandel Peninsula. Boats anchoring in infested areas and then moving without cleaning their anchor and warps appears to be a significant vector of spread. Eradication of this pest seems highly unlikely, though MPI is currently funding trials aimed at reducing biomass of the pest at specific sites.

Council’s marine biosecurity dive team have been actively surveying risk sites for Caulerpa with no detections to date. Given the number of vessel movements between our region and the infested areas to the north, staff consider incursions of this pest to be likely unless effective pathway management and rigorous enforcement actions are put in place at infested sites.

Staff recommend Exotic Caulerpa is included in the RPMP as an exclusion pest. When or if Caulerpa arrives in the region, the most appropriate pest management programme would be sustained control. This is because the objective of exclusion, eradication and progressive containment are unlikely to be achievable. Staff recommend a new generic rule to manage the spread of marine pests through good boating practice.

Although there is a high level of uncertainty around costs of excluding and/or controlling Exotic Caulerpa, the environmental, economic and socio-cultural values at stake in the event of an incursion far outweigh the costs of the policy response to attempt to exclude Exotic Caulerpa from the region. Although it is unlikely an incursion can be entirely avoided, a high level of surveillance will assist in identifying early populations and an appropriate level of response.

2.5 Corbicula

Existing policy framework

When the RPMP was developed, Corbicula fluminea (Corbicula, also referred to as Gold Clam) had not been detected in NZ and therefore was not considered for inclusion in the RPMP.

Since its detection in the Waikato River in May 2023, Corbicula has been declared an unwanted organism and staff have worked closely with MPI and iwi to develop strategies to exclude gold clam from our region including Controlled Notice Areas (CAN). Specific requirements apply to the Te Arawa lakes recognising the lakes’ vulnerability to incursions of clams especially with the number of recreational boats that visit from Waikato. Earlier this year a second related species of clam (Corbicula australis) was detected at the Taupō Aqua Park. This incursion is believed to be contained and planning is currently underway to eliminate this threat.

Currently Rule 7 in the RPMP may help reduce the risk of gold clam spread by default as it requires occupiers of vessels to ensure their vessels are free from freshwater pests. There are restrictions on transporting ballast water and boat trailers can only be in water for purposes of launching and/or retrieving boats. Rule 7 does not require that craft gear and equipment is dried before entering water bodies.

Issue and proposed response

Corbicula fluminea is native to eastern Asia but is also widely established through America and Europe. Outside its native range, gold clams are known to reproduce rapidly and can clog water-takes and other infrastructure such as hydro-power generation plants. They also compete for food and space with native species. Gold clams are prolific breeders producing up to 70,000 juveniles per year. Experience from overseas has shown this clam to be highly invasive and difficult to control – it has never been eradicated from any site where it has established. Corbicula australis is native to Australia where it is common. Its biology is believed to be similar to the related C. fluminea.

Staff recommend including all species of Corbicula in the RPMP. Staff also recommend amendments to Rule 7 to ensure any vessels and/or equipment used in waterbodies have been cleaned and dried prior to use in another waterbody.

The cost of surveillance compared to the likely high economic costs for managing the impacts of a Corbicula incursion on infrastructure, native aquatic ecosystems and water quality suggest including Corbicula as an RPMP pest is an economically sound choice. The cost of a response to an incursion is largely unknown and will depend on the situation.

2.6 Introduced Turtles

Existing policy framework

The Act provides for controls on reptiles and other animals otherwise protected by the Wildlife Act 1953, but only if they are unwanted organisms. Turtles have not been declared as unwanted organisms therefore the Wildlife Act absolutely protects them (indigenous or not), unless they are included in a schedule to that Act. The only turtle included in a schedule of the Wildlife Act is the red eared slider turtle.

Under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, no person is allowed to release an animal that has been kept in captivity, in circumstances in which the animal is likely to suffer unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

As turtles are not included in the RPMP or declared an unwanted organism, no Biosecurity Act 1993 provisions apply.

Issue and proposed response

Pet escapes and deliberate releases are a proven source of invasive species into the wild. Once pet species establish feral populations they can become pests, leading to adverse impacts on the environment, native wildlife (through competition, predation, and disease transmission), industry sectors such as agriculture and horticulture, and our way of life (MPI, 2012). Turtles are no exception. There are no native turtles in New Zealand, so turtles, unless bred in the wild, started life as pets.

With climate change there is an increasing risk of turtles being able to survive and reproduce in the wild. For example, a warming climate will see more successful hatching of eggs and will impact sex ratios of the species (whose sex is controlled by temperature).

Staff recommend including turtles as a sustained control pest in the RPMP with a definition that clearly captures all introduced turtles. As a sustained control pest, turtles will be captured by Rule 6(3). There are 2 components to this rule that would impact turtle owners: Keeping turtles as pets and releasing them into the wild. The purpose of including turtles in the RPMP is to minimise the risk of turtle release or escapes that result in turtles establishing in the wild. The proposal doesn’t intend to take away the right to own and keep turtles. A generic exemption could be granted under the Act (s78(3)) to owners of legitimately purchased pet turtles with conditions on turtle containment and disposal.

Data on the impacts of turtles living in the wild in New Zealand is sparse. However, there is ample evidence from overseas research to suggest that the benefits of a regionally coordinated approach to manage turtles will outweigh the costs. Focusing on one species of turtle could have the unintended consequence in pushing up demand for other turtles and it makes sense to manage all turtles on the basis the potential negative impacts from populations establishing in the wild and the cost to manage them would be similar.

2.7 Phytopthora agathicida (formerly known as kauri dieback)

When staff reported to this Council at its December 2023 meeting, Phytophthora agathidicida (PA), formerly known as kauri dieback, had been provisionally identified in the Bay of Plenty. On that basis staff recommended the Exclusion pest programme that PA sits within be reviewed through the RPMP review. Further investigation of initial test results could not confirm a positive result and therefore the PA status remains ‘PA undetected’.

Staff recommend no change to the pest programme for PA. Staff will continue undertaking surveillance for PA and support Tiakina Kauri (the management agency for the National Pest Management Plan for PA) if there is an incursion.

2.8 Councillor Concerns

At its meeting in December 2023, Council asked staff to revisit and report back on the following issues:

2.8.1 Myrtle Rust

Myrtle rust (Austropuccinia psidii) is an identified Unwanted Organism with the potential to be a serious disease for members of the myrtle (Myrtaceae) family of plants. Its presence on the mainland of Aotearoa / New Zealand was confirmed in April 2017, on pōhutukawa seedlings in a nursery in Kerikeri. There are 27 native species and several highly valued exotic species that are members of the Myrtle family, including pōhutukawa, rātā, mānuka, kānuka, ramarama, maire, feijoa and Eucalyptus. To date, ramarama and pōhutukawa appear to be among the worst affected species, although it may take many years to fully understand the impacts of myrtle rust on native plant species and ecosystems. Auckland Council is contributing to a nationally coordinated approach to the new threat posed by myrtle rust, led by the Ministry for Primary Industries and including development of a national Myrtle Rust Long-term Strategy.

As a primarily wind-borne pathogen, options for successful regional intervention through an RPMP are limited. However, once a fuller understanding of impacts and management options is developed, Council may consider addition of myrtle rust to this current or a future Regional Pest Management Plan. In the interim, Council will continue to rely on myrtle rust’s Unwanted Organism status and the powers that status provides to the Ministry of Primary Industries (which, as noted above, may be delegated to Council if agreed with the Ministry).

Staff recommend not to include myrtle rust to the RPMP at this stage, noting if management options become available myrtle rust could be considered for inclusion in the future.

2.8.2 Woolly nightshade

Staff are preparing a separate paper for Council on the management of woolly nightshade. No policy change is being proposed though this report.

2.8.3 Boundary rules

Although there are no good neighbour rules in the RPMP, the plan supports a good neighbour approach in that if one neighbour is actively managing a plant pest, their efforts should not be undermined by the inaction of their neighbours.

Concern was raised around implementation of the ‘Good Neighbour’ approach in the RPMP especially in the context of pest management in road and reserve areas and who can make a complaint.

The rules for Sustained Control pests (Rules 4(2), and 5(2) and Rule 5(2)(1)) require action if a neighbour is undertaking pest management or if written direction for action from an authorised person is given. In the explanation of these rules a list of possible triggers for written direction includes complaints from compliant neighbours. This list is not exhaustive. However, the way the explanation is currently worded could be interpreted as only compliant neighbours can complain. Likewise, the explanation for Rule 4 states that Council considers this rule as a boundary control rule and would only act on a complaint from a compliant neighbour.

Staff recommend removing reference to complaints from compliant neighbours and instead refer to complaints received as a possible trigger to require action.

2.9 Minor Amendments

At its meeting 14 December 2023 Council approved minor amendments to reflect the taxomony review of spartina (now known as Sporobolus) and amending maps to clarify pest programmes for waterbodies. These changes will be made during this review process but won’t be open for submission.

At that December meeting staff recommended the definition of wild kiwifruit be part of the partial plan review scope to address the potential risk of unmanaged orchards. The following definition has been developed in consultation with KVH (Kiwifruit Vine Health):

Wild kiwifruit

Any kiwifruit that has established by natural means, or any kiwifruit that is not managed i.e., fruit is not picked by 1 July yearly and vines are not pruned and tied down by 1 October yearly.

The amended definition does not have a significant effect on any person’s rights and can be considered a minor amendment rather than be subject to RPMP review requirements. Staff recommend this definition be adopted as it provides clarity around what level of management Council anticipates before an orchard is considered unmanaged.

3. Considerations

3.1 Risks and Mitigations

There will always be an element of risk with regards to pest management. New pests arrive and the ability to manage them is uncertain (i.e. available management options, public support for management options and funding). This report presents a policy response that better prepares Council for changing pest issues. This report includes comprehensive cost, benefit and risk (including options to mitigate risk) assessments to support the RPMP proposal (see Supporting Document One).

There is little risk that the proposed changes will be perceived as a challenge to people’s rights and obligations.

3.2 Climate Change

Climate change will create new biosecurity challenges by allowing establishment of new pests (or expand the range of current pests). An example of a pest that benefits from climate change thus changing its risk status is introduced turtles (see section 2.6).

As new pest threats emerge, Council needs to consider its policy response to manage them. This review proposal reflects an adaptive approach to new threats posed by climate change.

3.3 Implications for Māori

One specific purpose of an RPMP under the Biosecurity Act is to provide for the protection of the relationship between Māori and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu, and taonga, and to protect those aspects from the adverse effects of pests.

The pests proposed for inclusion threaten the general mauri of Te Ao. There is an expectation from Māori that Council is preparing for future pest incursions. For example, Ngati Tarawhai recently submitted on the Long Term Plan asking for Corbicula to be managed through the RPMP and that extra resourcing be allocated towards compliance.

Māori involvement in biosecurity is an important part of exercising kaitiakitanga and Māori expect to be part of any future pest management response.

3.4 Community Engagement

The Act sets out who must be consulted during the ‘making’ of an RPMP including Ministers, local authorities, tangata whenua of the area and other persons who might be affected by the Plan. Council must decide how consultation is to be undertaken including but not limited to:

· Consultation with affected persons

· Independent inquiry

· Public notification and the receipt of submissions

1. To date staff have worked collaboratively with pest management partners, key stakeholders, subject matter experts and regional council colleagues to develop these amendments. There are other parties who may be affected by the amended RPMP that have not yet been consulted on the full detail of the proposed changes.

Staff recommend a limited consultation process comprising public notification and a four-week period to receive submissions. During the submission period staff will be available to discuss the proposed changes with all interested parties. Targeted communication channels will be used to inform the regional community of the proposed changes and invite their input. This consultation approach meets statutory requirements.

3.5 Process to consider submissions

Council’s standard process to consider submissions is to summarise submissions, prepare a staff report and then convene a Hearings Panel providing submitters an opportunity to talk to their submission. Under the Act, there is no legislative requirement to hold hearings to consider submissions. However, Council must set out its reason for accepting or rejecting submissions and give those decisions to each submitter.

In ‘making’ the current RPMP Council approved an alternative approach to consider submissions. All submitters were contacted by staff and each submission point discussed either in person or over the phone. Those discussions informed the officer’s report presented to council for consideration. Staff recommend a similar approach to consider submissions on the reviewed RPMP on the basis that there is already ongoing collaboration with affected parties and the narrow scope of this review.

4. Next Steps

Following Council decisions on this report, staff will notify the RPMP review with a four-week submission period. Throughout this period staff will be available to discuss the RPMP review and proposed amendments with interested parties.

Staff will report back to Council after the submission period has closed.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Biosecurity Act provisions for RPMP review and commment on compliance ⇩

Attachment 2 - Proposed Redline Strikeout Amendments to RPMP ⇩

Supporting Document 1 - Collated CBAs (including caulerpa, corbicula, turtles and pest conifers) ⇩



Report To:	Regional Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Writer:	Oliver Haycock, Director, Public Transport; Andrew Williams, Manager, Transport Planning and Katri Harmoinen, Transport Planner
Report Authoriser:	Mat Taylor, General Manager, Corporate
Purpose:	To provide the Regional Council with options for supporting a ferry service on the Tauranga harbour.

Tauranga Harbour Ferry Service Trial – Options Assessment

Executive Summary

Earlier this year, marine transport operator Hauraki Express (HE) put forward a proposal seeking support to deliver a passenger ferry trial service on the Tauranga harbour, connecting Tauranga’s CBD and downtown Mount Maunganui.

The proposal has been escalated through both Tauranga City Council (TCC) and Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s (Regional Council) respective governance processes. The proposal has progressed and been endorsed by:

1. The Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee (TPTJC) meeting on 4 June 2024;

2. Tauranga City Council meeting on 20 May 2024 where it chose to underwrite up to a maximum of $1.4M to support HE’s proposal; and

3. The Public Transport Committee (PTC) meeting on 12 June 2024.

At the most recent Committee meeting, the PTC endorsed the proposal and “requested that staff report to Regional Council on 1 August 2024 to seek a 50% financial share of the operational costs, up to a maximum of $1.4M over the two-year trial period”. The two year trial period is hoped to commence from Mar-Apr 2025, and therefore has impacts on three financial years.

Three options are presented in this paper for consideration by the Regional Council.

Recommendations

That the Regional Council:

1 Receives the report, Tauranga Harbour Ferry Service Trial – Options Assessment;

2 Endorses one of the following three options:

(a) Option 1: Provide funding of up to $1.4million over two years to Tauranga City Council (TCC) to contribute to the costs incurred by TCC in engaging Hauraki Express to provide a ferry service; Or:

(b) Option 2: Provide funding of up to $1.4million over two years to TCC to support a ferry service which is conditional on TCC:

(i) Undertaking an open market procurement process to appoint a service provider to deliver the trial; Or:

(c) Option 3: Do not provide funding support for a Tauranga harbour ferry trial;

3 Approves, that in the event it endorses Option 1 or Option 2, funding is conditional on TCC reconfirming its intent to implement the service via a council resolution;

4 In the event it endorses Option 1 or Option 2, endorses one of the following funding options:

(a) Fund from the Regional Fund Reserve; Or

(b) Fund 2024/25 from the Regional Fund Reserve, and 2025/26 to 2026/27 from Rates; Or

(c) Fund 2024/25 from the Regional Fund Reserve, to be repaid by Rates, and 2025/26 to 2026/27 from Rates;

5 Approves, that in the event it endorses Option 1 or Option 2, delegates to the Chief Executive the ability to approve and execute a funding agreement with TCC (and any variations) and approve payments under the funding agreement;

6 Confirms the decision has a medium level of significance as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council has identified and assessed different options and considered community views as part of making the decision, in proportion to the level of significance.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Hauraki Express Proposal

1 Earlier this year, the ferry transport operator Hauraki Express Limited (HE) submitted a proposal to trial ferry services on the Tauranga harbour to the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) process, and subsequently presented to a meeting of the Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee (TPTJC).

2 HE’s proposal seeks support for the operation of a passenger and bike ferry trial covering a 5km stretch of Tauranga harbour between Tauranga’s CBD and Mount Maunganui, for a period of 2 years. Two ferries are proposed, that would:

§ Be capable of carrying 30 passengers and 15 bicycles;

§ Have an approximate voyage time of 15-17 minutes, wharf-to-wharf;

§ Operate for 330 days per year with two vessels making 20 harbour crossings – 40 trips in total – per day;

§ Utilise existing shore-based infrastructure where possible at each end – Sailsbury wharf (Mount Manganui) and the boat ramp at The Strand (Tauranga CBD); and

§ Use 12m long vessels, designed to load/unload either bow-on to boat ramps or alongside floating jetties.

Figure 1: Hauraki Express concept ferry

Figure 2: Proposed Hauraki Express ferry route

The proposal has gained some media attention with articles in the Bay of Plenty times, Radio New Zealand, Sunlive and Scoop over recent weeks.

1.2 Governance Process to Date

The proposal has moved through TCC and Regional Council’s governance processes. The following meetings and associated decisions have resulted:

§ TPTJC meeting – 1 May 2024: the Committee requested that the two-year trial for a ferry service between the Tauranga CBD and Mount Maunganui be actioned and the Committee be provided with options at the next meeting to be held 4 June 2024.

§ TCC meeting – 20 May 2024: Commissioners approved the recommendation to underwrite up to 50% of the funding required to trial ferry operations up to a maximum amount of $1.4M payable over the first two years of the trial (i.e., $700,000 per annum) of rate funded expenditure. The same recommendation was supported by a note which stated that the underwrite is conditional on the other 50% being funded by Regional Council.

§ TPTJC meeting – 4 June 2024: the Committee was provided with an options paper, of which the options were ‘do nothing’ or ‘endorse the proposal’. The Committee resolved to endorse the proposal, progress the trial within agreed financial limits, subject to Regional Council approval and to present a report to PTC on 12 June 2024 seeking endorsement to proceed with the proposal and to seek Regional Council funding.

§ PTC meeting – 12 June 2024: the Committee was provided with an options paper, of which the options were ‘do nothing’ or ‘endorse the proposal’. The Committee resolved to endorse the proposal, progress the trial and requested that staff report to Regional Council on 1 August 2024 to seek a 50% financial share of the operational costs, up to a maximum of $1.4M over the two-year trial period.

1.3 Previous Work

An independent feasibility study on the provision of ferry services undertaken in 2023, the findings of which were reported to the PTC. This study predominantly considered the suitability of ferries for providing public transport, as opposed to a service predominantly serving leisure or tourism markets.

The study recommended that due to the high operational and capital costs of ferry services compared to bus, that “it would be prudent in the short- to medium-term to make best use of the existing albeit underutilised bus mode of public transport in advance of significant investment in a new to the region public transport mode”.

On 14 November 2023 the PTC resolved to defer any further investigations into Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty ferry services until the development of 2027 long terms plans and the 2027-30 National Land Transport Programme.

1.3.1 Comparable Services

The independent feasibility study considered the success factors of other ferry services operated in New Zealand. The following two case studies are most applicable to the Tauranga context.

Wellington

Greater Wellington Regional Council contracts a ferry service between Days Bay on the eastern shore of Wellington Harbour and Queens Wharf in Wellington’s City Centre. This service targets both commuters and leisure passengers. The service:

§ Operates between 6:30 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays, with frequencies every twenty to thirty minutes during weekday peaks, and approximately hourly between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekends.

§ The route is 10.5 km by sea and takes twenty-five minutes direct, or forty minutes with an intermediate stop at Mātiu/Somes Island.

§ By land is 21 km and takes approximately fifty minutes by bus, and up to an hour by car during peak traffic conditions. Therefore, travel time and distance by ferry is highly competitive with land transport, taking approximately half the time of the bus or driving during commuter peaks.

§ Transports approximately 15,000 passengers per month^{^[3]}.

Christchurch

Environment Canterbury provides a contracted ferry service across Lyttleton harbour, between the village of Diamond Harbour and Lyttleton. This service targets both commuters and leisure passengers. The service:

· Operates every thirty minutes at peak times, and approximately hourly across the day between 6:30 am and 11:00 pm weekdays and Saturdays, and hourly from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm on Sundays.

· This route takes twelve minutes to traverse 3 km from the southern shore to the north.

· Provides a travel time advantage comparative to the land route. The trip around the harbour by the coastal road is 29 km and takes approximately forty minutes by car, more than three times longer than the ferry. An alternative bus service does not operate between Diamond Harbour and Lyttleton.

Application to the Tauranga Context

Both of the above case studies target both the commuter and leisure market, which would be similar in the Tauranga context. It should be noted that the independent feasibility study identified other success factors, which may not be applicable to Tauranga:

· Places where a journey by road is much slower - both Mount Maunganui and Te Papa are peninsulas. While there is significant journey time variability by both time of day and season, the road journey time differential is not as extreme as other New Zealand case studies.

· Places with strong bus feeder service – while both wharf locations are within a reasonable proximity to some bus routes, there is currently no integration. Street layout and geography would present challenges to achieve this in the short term.

· Places without duplicative public transport services – a ferry between Mount Maunganui and Tauranga CBD would be in direct competition with an existing urban bus route (5).

1.4 Support from Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency

Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are not currently in a position to financially support a ferry trial, as funding is not identified in and has not been requested from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).

Requests for NLTF funding are usually put forward as part of the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) process. A submission to the 2024-2034 RLTP from Hauraki Express was rejected by the Regional Transport Committee.

For an investment of this size, a business case would be required. It would need to justify a value for money case for a ferry as a transport service (as opposed to a service predominantly serving the leisure or tourism markets), and given the findings of the feasibility study outlined in Section 0, it is not expected that a compelling case could be made to NZTA at this time.

As a result, a ferry service would not currently be classed as a public transport service from NZTA's perspective and therefore any contract for services is not required to sit with the Public Transport Authority^{^[4]} (Regional Council).

Alignment with Strategic Framework

1.5 Significance

The recommended proposal/decision has been assessed against the criteria and thresholds in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and can be considered:

Medium

The decision is not within existing budgets and does not implement the current long term plan or annual plan.

2. Options assessment

2.1 Option 1: Provide funding to TCC to support the ferry trial proposed by Hauraki Express

Option 1 provides for the provision of funding for the HE proposal for 50% financial share of operational costs, up to a maximum of $1.4M over two years.

This would progress as a direct appointment by TCC of HE to provide a trial ferry service, which could potentially be operational by mid-2025.

As noted above, the TCC funding allocation was confirmed at its 22 May 2024 Council meeting.

2.1.1 Option 1 - Procurement

Option 1 would see TCC hold the contractual relationship with HE, and Regional Council providing the funding support in the form of a funding grant directly to TCC. TCC have confirmed they are willing to hold the contract with the service provider.

TCC is the contracting party procuring services and TCC has considered direct appointment of HE was permitted within its procurement policy and was the appropriate course of action.

This procurement approach is favoured by TCC, as it reduces the amount of time required to implement the service.

2.1.2 Option 1 - Financial implications

The current proposal is one that, if endorsed, would see costs shared between Tauranga City Council, Regional Council, and HE, as follows:

§ Operating Expenditure (OPEX): Approximately $1.4M per annum with costs spilt evenly between Regional Council and TCC at $700K per council per annum for two years, with Regional Council’s total contribution capped at $1.4M. TCC’s papers note that “… hoping to have the proposal operating by March-April 2025…”

§ Capital Expenditure (CAPEX): HE would be responsible for all capital investment for the vessels. The maintenance of wharf side and supporting infrastructure is assumed to be the responsibility of TCC.

5 Table 6, at Section 3, presents the financial implications for Option 1.

2.1.3 Option 1 - Roles and responsibilities

Table 1: Option 1 - respective roles and responsibilities

Hauraki Express

TCC

Regional Council

· Fund the capex of the ferry vessels.

· Include the ferries in a MTOP (Maritime Transport Operator Plan) and be responsible for full compliance with maritime rules.

· Employ crew and operate the ferries.

· Hold the contractual relationship with HE.

· Fund up to a maximum of $700,000 per annum for two years for the purpose of a trial ferry service.

· Be responsible for ticketing and the collection of revenue.

· Distribute revenue evenly to offset both TCC and Regional Council’s OPEX contributions.

· Make available and maintain wharf side and supporting infrastructure.

· Fund up to a maximum of $700,000 per annum for two years for the purpose of a trial ferry service.

It is expected that all parties would partake in marketing and promoting the ferry service.

2.1.4 Option 1 - Benefits, issues and risks

Table 2: Option 1 - summary of benefits, issues and risks

	Option 1: Fund the HE proposal
Benefits	- TCC procuring via direct appointment would likely be the quickest way to commence a ferry service trial. - By not holding the contract, the trial will not place significant additional burden on Regional Council staff. - It will test the anecdotally high levels of public interest in trialling a ferry service. - Opportunity for both TCC and Regional Council to evaluate the true viability of ferry services for delivering public transport, including their ability to alleviate traffic congestion in the Mount Maunganui & Hewletts Road corridors.
Issues	- The $1.4M of expenditure required to deliver this option is currently unbudgeted by Regional Council. - An appropriate monitoring programme would need to be developed to measure success. This would need to consider public transport outcomes, patronage targets, farebox recovery.
Risks	- Excluding a competitive tender process may result in missed opportunities for options that deliver better value for money.

2.2 Option 2: Provide funding to support a ferry trial, contingent on an open procurement process

Option 2 mirrors Option 1 but would make Regional Council’s funding contingent on an open market procurement process, undertaken by TCC.

Option 2 has not previously been tabled for consideration. Both the TPTJC and PTC have solely been asked to consider whether they support the HE proposal or not.

Option 2 has now been put forward in response to concerns around the perceptions associated with directly appointing an operator. It should be noted that two other ferry operators have approached the Regional Council since the Hauraki Express option was endorsed by the TPTJC to express an interest in the potential trial.

2.2.1 Option 2 - Procurement

This option would be contingent on TCC running an open procurement process and holding the contractual relationship with the successful operator.

It would be the responsibility of TCC as the contract holder to facilitate the procurement process.

Going out to the open market would likely slow the speed of getting any ferry service operational. It should be noted that TCC staff have expressed concern with this option, for this reason.

However, it would allow for transparency, additional potential suppliers to bid for the services, and possibly a greater range of options and technological solutions for consideration, as well as greater value for money.

2.2.2 Option 2 - Financial implications

Option 2 proposes Regional Council making up to a maximum of $1.4M available for funding a ferry trial service. This is the same funding allocation requested by Option 1, and therefore, has the same funding implications, though the timing will almost certainly be delayed until 2025/2026.

2.2.3 Option 2 - Roles and responsibilities

Table 3: Option 2 – respective roles and responsibilities

Successful Operator

TCC

Regional Council

· Fund the capex of the ferry vessels.

· Include the ferries in a MTOP (Maritime Transport Operator Plan) and be responsible for full compliance with maritime rules.

· Employ crew and operate the ferries.

· Run an open market procurement process to identify a preferred supplier.

· Hold the contractual relationship with the supplier.

· Fund up to a maximum of $700,000 per annum for two years for the purpose of a trial ferry service.

· Be responsible for ticketing and the collection of revenue.

· Distribute revenue evenly to offset both TCC and Regional Council’s OPEX contributions.

· Make available and maintain wharf side and supporting infrastructure.

· Fund up to a maximum of $700,000 per annum for two years for the purpose of a trial ferry service.

It is expected that all parties would partake in marketing and promoting the ferry service.

2.2.4 Option 2 - Benefits, issues and risks

Table 4: Option 2 - summary of benefits, issues and risks

	Option 2: Provide funding to support a ferry trial with an open market procurement process.
Benefits	- Running a competitive tender process could deliver a proposal that offers better value for money. - By not holding the contract, the trial will not place significant additional burden on Regional Council staff. - Anecdotally high levels of public interest in trialling a ferry service. - Opportunity to evaluate the true viability of ferry services for delivering public transport, including their ability to alleviate traffic congestion in the Mount Maunganui & Hewletts Road corridors.
Issues	- The operational expenditure required to deliver this option is currently unbudgeted by Regional Council. - An appropriate monitoring programme would need to be developed to measure success. This would need to consider public transport outcomes, patronage targets, farebox recovery.
Risks	- Running an open procurement process would delay the introduction of the service. - TCC’s funding commitment is not guaranteed under this option and would have to be confirmed.

2.3 Option 3: Do not provide funding support for a Tauranga harbour ferry trial

Option 3 would mean that Regional Council provide no financial support for a ferry service trial on the Tauranga harbour at this time.

Under this option, for the trial to progress, TCC would either need to fully fund the trial, or seek funding from alternative sources. Therefore, there would be a significant risk that a trial would not progress.

As Regional Council would not be involved in a trial if Option 3 were selected, procurement considerations, financial implications and roles and responsibilities have not been considered.

From a public transport outcomes perspective, $1.4M could deliver better value for money if it was allocated to public transport service delivery. Therefore, Council should consider the opportunity cost of any investment made.

2.3.1 Option 3 – Benefits, issues and risks

Table 5: Option 3 - summary of benefits, issues and risks

	Option 3: Do nothing
Benefits	· Resources are retained for initiatives that may better deliver against the strategic outcomes of the Regional Council.
Issues	N/A
Risks	· The ferry trial does not proceed. · Missed opportunity to trial a new method of service delivery and understand its value to the transport network. · Potential reputational risk should Regional Council appear unsupportive of a proposal with anecdotally high levels of public interest.

3. Financial implications

Table 6, below, outlines the financial implications to enable the $1.4M allocation for Option 1. Financial implications for Option 2 are similar, however, implementation will almost certainly be delayed until at least 2025/26.

Costs in Year 1 would be funded through Regional Fund Reserves^{^[5]} with no rating implication in that year, whereas Year 2 and 3 would be funded via a mix of targeted and general rates.

Table 6: Option 1 - Financial Implications

Recommended Option – Ferries Option 1
	Year 1 2024/25 $000	Year 2 2025/26 $000	Year 3 2026/27 $000	Comments
Opex Cost
Grants and Contributions	175	700	525	3 months operation in Year 1
Regional Fund Interest foregone	4	9	9	Year 1 reflects phased drawdown of Regional Fund over the year rather than an early lump sum payment
Total Opex	179	709	534
Opex Funding
Rates	-	709	534	Additional rates funding (90% TR and 10% GR), Regional Fund Interest Foregone funded by General Rates
Regional Fund Reserves	179	-	-	Funded by Regional Fund reserves year 1
Cost Impact per Rating Unit
TGA Targeted Rate	$2.94 Equivalent	$11.53	$8.65
General Rate	$0.18 Equivalent	$0.66	$0.51	Funded by Regional Fund reserves in Year 1, Year 2-3 rates funded

If Council were to require the Regional Fund use to be repaid, this could be achieved by maintaining the higher rates funding of Year 2 into Year 3. Alternatively, Council could fund the trial entirely from the Regional Fund, which would decrease the projected 2026/27 closing balance from $8M to $6.6M.

4. Considerations

4.1 Legislative Framework

The Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) provides the legal framework for managing and funding public transport activities. The purpose of the LTMA is to contribute to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest. At this stage, and as noted, a ferry service would not be managed under the LTMA as it will not be receiving financial support from NZTA, nor will the contract to operate the service sit with Regional Council as a Public Transport Authority. This position may change if monitoring of a trial can illustrate value for money comparative to other public transport service offerings.

4.2 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Vibrant Region

We lead regional transport strategy and system planning, working with others to deliver a safe and reliable public transport system.

4.3 Risks and Mitigations

Risks and mitigations for each option are outlined in section 2 above.

4.4 Climate Change

Staff consider that the ferry trial will not provide large scale mode shift away from private vehicle use in Tauranga. However, a trial will likely derive benefits of the service to support a future, or permanent offering which, if utilised by commuters, may have some mitigating benefits.

Going out to the open market to seek a service provider for a trial ferry service would allow a range of businesses and operators to bid for the opportunity. This might support opportunities such as the deployment of electric ferries subsequently reducing emission impacts of a trial. The two ferries that are proposed for inclusion in the HE trial, at this stage, are understood to be diesel powered.

4.5 Implications for Māori

Engagement with Māori communities, including the broader public, partners and stakeholders, would likely occur if the two-year trial was to be either extended or considered as a permanent service. Māori within the Tauranga moana area would likely benefit from the trial as it would provide another form of transport to support access to goods, services, and education.

4.6 Community Engagement

No community engagement has taken place to date. If the service, after the initial two-year trial period was successful and was extended or became permanent, community engagement would likely occur to ensure the offering considers public opinion and responds accordingly.

4.7 Financial Implications

The financial implications for the three options are outlined in section 3.

5. Next Steps

If the Council endorses Option 1 or Option 2, work will begin to draft a funding agreement.

Staff would work with TCC to develop a funding agreement which set out the roles and responsibilities including the terms on which funding from Regional Council was provided and any required deliverables. This would include noting that it would be the responsibility of TCC as the contract holder to engage the services of HE. A funding agreement would also set out how a monitoring framework would be developed to measure the success of the ferry service.

Monitoring metrics and reporting process would also need to be developed.

[1] Borrower Notes are subordinated convertible debt instruments which each council that borrows from LGFA must subscribe for (in an amount equal to 2.5% of the total borrowing from LGFA by that council). LGFA will redeem Borrower Notes when the related borrowings are repaid or no longer owed to LGFA. Meeting this obligation increases our gross debt to LGFA, but not our net debt.

[2] The thinking behind the allocation of costs is documented in Regional Pest Management Plan for the Bay of Plenty Region: Meeting the Biosecurity Act requirements. The funding of the implementation of this Plan is generally from a region-wide general rate set and assessed under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. Amendments will be made to include additional pests to cost groupings and figures following Council decisions on this proposal.

[4] Regional councils, unitary authorities and Auckland Transport are collectively referred to as public transport authorities (PTAs). All public transport services in New Zealand must be delivered by, or be under contract to a public transport authority, unless exempt or excluded.

[5] The regional fund reserve is an alternative Regional Council funding source used to fund future infrastructure projects. Is replenished through budgeted contributions from activities and is available for use by all activities.

Chairperson	Chairman Doug Leeder
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Jane Nees
Members	All Councillors
Quorum	Seven members, consisting of half the number of members
Meeting frequency	Six weekly or as required for Annual Plan, Long Term Plan and other relevant legislative requirements

	2024/25 $m		2025/26 $m		2026/27 $m
	Draft SOI	SOI	DraftSOI	SOI	DraftSOI	SOI
Forecast Net Interest Income	28.3	29.9	28.3	39.6	27.0	41.5
Forecast Expenses	14.6	16.8	16.6	19.6	18.4	21.8
Forecast Net Operating Profit	15.1	14.5	13.1	21.5	10.1	21.2