Mayor Thanks Community For Feedback
Press Release – Tauranga City Council
Councils proposed model is a multi-council controlled organisation (CCO) with potential partners, including Western Bay of Plenty District Council.
Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale thanks the people of Tauranga Moana for providing feedback on two important topics: the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 and Local Water Done Well.
During the month-long consultation period – from 28 March to 28 April 2025 – Council received 968 submissions, with 96 people wanting to speak to their submission at the upcoming hearings.
To make a submission, people were encouraged to visit council's website and provide feedback via an online form.
More than 20 events were also held across the city in April, providing an opportunity for the community to find out more and share their thoughts with the Mayor and Councillors.
'Thank you to those who came along. This was one of the first opportunities we've had as a group to get out into the community and talk with people about what matters to them and ask whether we have the right balance between investing in our future and keeping rates affordable now,' says Mahé.
'We realise it's not always possible to come at the allocated times and with that in mind, we're also running councillor drop-in sessions throughout the year.'
In addition to consulting on the draft Annual Plan 2025/26, under policy direction from central government, all councils are required to consult with their communities and decide on a proposed future delivery model for drinking water, wastewater and storm water services. This is known as Local Water Done Well.
Council assessed a number of options and three were offered for community consideration.
Council's proposed model is a multi-council controlled organisation (CCO) with potential partners, including Western Bay of Plenty District Council.
In addition, a Tauranga City Council standalone CCO was consulted on. This model would be solely-owned and controlled by Tauranga City Council.
The third option consulted on was for Tauranga City Council to keep its current model, where water services are kept in-house, with changes to comply with new legislation.
Mahe says everyone who made a submission has contributed to the decision-making process.
'Every submission will be read and considered, and we are looking forward to hearing from those who wish to speak to their submissions at Council meetings this week.'
Hearings will take place at Council Chambers, 90 Devonport Road in Tauranga from 9am-5pm on Tuesday, 13 May and at Bay Oval in Mount Maunganui from 1pm-7pm on Wednesday, 14 May.
All submissions will then be considered during the deliberations on the draft Annual Plan 2025/25 and Local Water Done Well from Monday, 26 May.
Once decisions are made, the final Annual Plan document will be completed and brought to the Council to adopt on 26 June.
Following consideration of Local Water Done Well feedback, Council is also tasked with completing a Water Services Delivery Plan, which is required to be submitted to central government before 3 September.
This plan will set-out how Tauranga will provide a financially sustainable waters service for the future and is required to be accepted by government.
See Council meetings and agendas for more information.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 - It's Back
Plan Change One (PC1) INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT is now ready for Council input and consideration. (813) Farming in Whangamarino Wetland catchment is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in both the Decisions Version and WRC's Final Proposal and effects on the Whangamarino Wetland is a matter over which WRC restricts its discretion in both cases. Rule 3.11.4.6 5.v in WRC's Final Proposal reinforces this by requiring FEPs to provide evidence that the significance and sensitivity of the Whangamarino Wetland has been considered in development of the FEP. Does this mean that farmers in the large Whangamarino Catchment will have to apply for a Restricted Discretionary Consent which may impact adversely on their decision-making ability? In the years since PC1 was first proposed up to the present time, farmers in the Waikato Region have continued making improvements to their management practices. Evidence of this can be seen in the requirements dairy farmers now face just to supply milk to the Milk Companies and that dry stock farmers must meet to supply stock to processors. Many of the proposed PC1 requirements are already being complied with by farmers, to enable them to meet their supplier requirements. For instance, stream fencing on dairy farms is mandatory practice, nutrient management, e.g. Fertiliser is strategically used with increased use of speciality mixes designed to limit runoff. Dry stock farmers have not been stationary either with much planting along stream banks; ensuring that cattle are kept well away from critical source areas, and managing stocking rates to suit land type while vegetable growers too have had to meet stringently imposed market audits. In the Whangamarino catchment it appears that farming will be a Restricted Discretionary Consent activity, which will require the use of Farm Environment Plans to ensure compliance. The hope is that these will not require expensive external audit requirements, particularly given the improvements to farming practices that are ongoing and in light of the current economic climate. The imposition of restrictive regulatory burdens and expensive compliance costs for farmers in this catchment will most likely lead to increased loss of productive land eventually resulting in upward costs of food produced within the catchment which is one of the country's main vegetable production areas and provides most of the fresh vegetable production for the Auckland population. This is nearly a quarter of the total NZ population. The proposed rules would appear to add to production costs rather than add to measurable outcomes. This is particularly true when you read the interim report from the Environment Court and find that there is no mention anywhere in the report of controlling/eradicating koi carp- the number one enemy. When it comes to making a discernible impact on improving water quality in the catchment then the effects from Koi Carp must be taken into consideration. The true fact is that without an achievable eradication/control plan for Koi Carp then reduction in sediment and erosion effects will never be realised and in fact the levels of both sedimentation and erosion of the waterways and watercourses will only get worse. Failure to control or eradicate Koi Carp will also lead to a reduction in the levels of indigenous flora and fauna and over time will more than likely lead to mass extinction of native species of both flora and fauna in, and on the margins of, the waterways. The eventual outcome will be that the deleterious effects from Koi Carp will far outweigh any benefits that may be gained from the farming sectors under these new rules. Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of their proposed new rules (which are very similar to PC1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report was that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector. WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation. The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy. It is claimed that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion, but what is not being said is that they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty is already causing increased mental health issues among farmers. It has also been claimed that the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation, but this claim is just not supported in any way by the facts. The proposed PCI rules even stop agriculture making sensible decisions such as changing land use to better suit the needs of the region. In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated/controlled. Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the waterways and along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment. In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the nation's economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production. The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country. A responsible approach would I believe see Council recommending 'Permitted Status' as at present to continue and alongside this status, Council should increase support for Catchment led groups who do make a measurable difference. Many excellent examples are springing up within our region, where measurable impacts are documented. New Zealand farmers are World leaders in picking up and embracing new technology that leads to better long-term sustainability but will not do so if held down with unnecessary regulatory burdens. With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Tasman Goes In-House For Local Water Done Well Implementation
Tasman's future management of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services has taken a step forward, with Tasman District Council unanimously opting for an in-house business unit structure to implement requirements of the Government's Local Water Done Well programme. This unit would be managed separately from other Council operations in a ringfenced capacity. While still part of the Council, it would be independently monitored to ensure high environmental and customer standards, as set by Taumata Arowai. The Council has also agreed in principle to establish an internal advisory committee with the option of external members to help provide operational oversight of three waters activities and provide advice to the Council. A report will be provided to the Council that includes options for membership, terms of reference and associated costs. Further to this, the Mayor and Councillors have expressed a desire for staff to continue discussions with other councils regarding options for greater alignment of services, information and procurement to increase efficiency savings across the Council's water, wastewater and stormwater functions. Local Water Done Well is intended to ensure people pay cost-reflective prices for water services, that those services are delivered to an acceptable quality, and that water services providers are investing sufficiently in infrastructure. The Council was obliged to consider and consult on new water service delivery options as part of the LWDW programme. On 27 March 2025, the Council confirmed public consultation on three options for future governance and management of Water, Wastewater and Stormwater. We received 16 submissions during the public consultation period between 22 April - 23 May 2025 Two options involving setting up a Water Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), each governed by an independent board, were also considered alongside the in-house proposal. Other governance options – such as trust models like those used in the electricity sector – have been considered by Council but are not being pursued. In the short to medium term, all options deliver similar financial outcomes. The structure and scope of the new business unit is yet to be finalized. However, it was acknowledged that an in-house unit operating within its agreed parameters allowed better opportunities for community involvement, as opposed to a CCO. The next steps in the process require a Water Service Delivery Plan to be completed and submitted to Department of Internal Affairs by 3 September, 2025. The WSDP will then be shared with the Commerce Commission, with a view towards the Water Service Delivery Plan being approved and ready for implementation by November 2025. It is intended that the internal business unit will formally function from 1 July 2027 to align with the next Long-Term Plan in 2027/2037.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Marlborough Residents Speak Against Council's Preferred Water Plan
Residents have spoken against the Marlborough District Council's preferred water services model at a Local Water Done Well hearing on Monday. The Government requires councils to choose from five water service delivery options a modified status quo (an in-house council department), a single council-controlled organisation, a multi-council-controlled organisation, and two types of trusts. The Marlborough District Council's preferred option is to create a standalone Water Services Organisation owned and controlled by the council. The council said it would find greater efficiencies to deliver better service at a lower cost, and have more borrowing capacity to maintain and improve the region's water infrastructure. But Marlborough residents aren't convinced. Of about 45 submissions made, 58 percent wanted to keep water services in-house, compared to 13 percent who preferred the standalone organisation. The remainder did not indicate a preference. Five people spoke on their submissions at a hearing in the council chamber on Monday, and they were all opposed to a standalone organisation. Brendan Kearney, who used to be chief financial officer of a council-controlled organisation in Canterbury, said there was no proof that a separate organisation would be more efficient, and setting up and funding a separate entity could cost ratepayers more. It would "inevitably duplicate some overhead costs", Kearney said. He said he saw no reason for water services to be removed from a council that had maintained its water systems relatively well. "[Water] assets are in good or very good condition. That's a credit to the current council and past councils as well. Council also has low debt relative to its peers. "This is compelling evidence, in my view, that the council has performed well and will continue to do so." To create a separate organisation, Kearney said the council would need to appoint directors, manage a new relationship with the organisation, and manage the organisation's own agenda. "A standalone company is no guarantee of good governance." Kearney said there also needed to be balance in who footed the water infrastructure bill between the ratepayers of today and of tomorrow. "It's unfair to gift hundreds of millions of dollars ... to the next generations completely debt free. That means the past generations paid too much. "On the other hand, it's unfair to get those assets, billions of dollars of assets, fully debt funded ... it's unfair on future generations. "Something in between those two extremes needs to happen." Submitter Lauchy Hynd said that creating a separate organisation to take on debt outside the council books was not sustainable. "What happens when we default?" Hynd said. "We're leveraging [water assets] by three to five times to borrow money against them. "This looks to me like Three Waters from the back door. "You can kick the can down the road and borrow recklessly, but I appeal to you to act boldly on behalf of the people." Submitters also voiced concerns about allowing an unelected and "unaccountable" organisation to take control of water services. "How do we maintain the ownership and the status of [water] assets in the hands of the people of Marlborough, when we're divesting them to an unelected group?" Hynd said. Submitter Bob Watson said he was worried about the potential to more easily privatise a separate organisation, pointing how the United Kingdom's water management became privatised. Ten regional water authorities were formed in 1974, which the UK government then sold to the private sector in 1989. "I think that the potential for private ownership ... basically our water utilities to be sold off to another entity, and for us to lose the democratic voice, would be terrible," Watson said. "I like the idea that [we're] here with people that have represented the community who can speak for us." The coalition Government had previously said that privatisation of water services was not on the table. The council would make its final decision on water services delivery on June 26, and submit its plan to the Government for approval by 3 September . LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
