Agenda of Council - Tuesday, 15 April 2025

Council

15 April 2025

Reports

DCC Submission on ORC Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks Council approval for a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-2035.

2 The RPTP is the statutory document that sets high level strategic direction for public transport activity in the region.

3 The key points raised in the submission relate to:

a) DCC’s view that a network and service review be included in the RPTP and

b) DCC’s view that there should be greater emphasis on the promotion of public and active transport in the RPTP.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves, with any amendments, the DCC submission on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-2035

b) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the submission if required.

c) Authorises the Mayor or his delegate to speak to the submission

BACKGROUND

4 On 24 March 2025, Otago Regional Council (ORC) released the draft Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-35 for consultation. Consultation closes on 2 May 2025. A summary of the document is provided as Attachment B. The full draft RPTP is available from ORC.

5 The draft RPTP 2025-35 will replace the 2021 RPTP. The document guides how Otago Regional Council will invest time and money into public transport for the next ten years (2025-2035). The plan aims to provide public transport solutions that are easy to understand and meet communities’ diverse needs.

6 RPTPs are required to be prepared under part 5 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Their purpose is to encourage Regional Councils and operators to work together, engage with the public on network design & operation, and to provide information about policies, services, information and infrastructure.

7 The new ORC RPTP will be given effect through ORC’s Long Term and Annual Plans, but at the time of adoption it does not commit to or provide funding.

DISCUSSION

8 DCC staff were invited to collaborate throughout the drafting process of this RPTP, with significant feedback provided at the 50% and 90% drafts of the document.

9 Changes in strategic priorities from Central Government, including a requirement for increased private share revenue for public transport, have played an important role in shaping the document. Examples within the document include discussion on:

a) Increasing the adult fare from $2.00 to $2.50

b) Retaining free fares for 5–12-year-olds

c) Charging higher fares for longer distances

10 Applications by ORC for funding public transport improvements in Dunedin were not successful and have not been included in the National Land Transport Programme 2024-2027 (NLTP).

11 Staff have drafted a final submission in line with current Council strategies and policies.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approve the DCC submission, with any amendments, on the ORC’s draft 2025-35 RPTP

Impact assessment

12 There is no impact on debt, rates or DCC emissions.

13 Public transport has the potential to reduce city-wide emissions, however this submission does not have a direct impact.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· There is likely to be no impact on DCC’s emissions as a result of this submission.

· The principles outlined in the Draft RPTP, and the points raised in the submission align with DCC’s Zero Carbon Implementation plan.

Advantages

· Opportunity to show support and highlight pathways for working with the ORC, one of the DCC’s major strategic partners.

· Provide feedback on public transport provision in Dunedin, which is relevant to the DCC’s strategic and operational work.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not approve the submission

Impact assessment

14 There is no impact on debt, rates or DCC emissions.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· Not submitting on the RPTP would have no direct impact on DCC’s or the city’s emissions.

Advantages

· There are no advantages to this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to show support and highlight pathways for working with the ORC, one of the DCC’s major strategic partners.

· Missed opportunity to provide feedback on public transport provision in Dunedin, which is relevant to the DCC’s strategic and operational work.

NEXT STEPS

15 If Council approves this submission, the submission, with any amendments, will be finalised and submitted to ORC by 2 May 2025.

16 If DCC wishes to speak to the submission, hearings will be held in May, and the Mayor or his delegate will attend.

17 DCC staff will continue working collaboratively with ORC staff on public transport in Dunedin.

Signatories

Author:

Abbey Chamberlain - Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser:

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCC Submission on RPTP	23
⇩b	RPTP Summary Document	26

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The RPTP helps shape public transport in the city, which is an important part of the transport system. Supporting public transport enables better access for the community, and improved transport outcomes.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori as a result of DCC’s submission. ORC are engaging separately with mana whenua.

Sustainability

The RPTP helps contribute positively to sustainability goals of the city.

Zero carbon

There is likely to be no impact on DCC’s emissions as a result of this submission. The principles outlined in the Draft RPTP, and the points raised in the submission align with DCC’s Zero Carbon Implementation plan.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications for consideration.

Significance

The submission is not significant. ORC has consulted extensively on the draft document.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on the submission.

Engagement - internal

Feedback from Parks and Recreation Services, Events, Zero Carbon and Transport has been incorporated into the draft RPTP, and the submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards, however they can independently submit on the RPTP during the consultation period.

Council

15 April 2025

Draft DCC Submission on ORC’s draft Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035

April 2025

RPTP Submissions

Otago Regional Council

Private Bag 1954

Dunedin 9054

Kia ora

Draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035

1 Dunedin City Council (DCC) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-2035. Dunedin is the largest population centre in Otago and an important destination for the wider region. Dunedin has the highest number of public transport trips in the region and is host to multiple key regional services including tertiary institutions and the largest hospital in the lower South Island.

2 The DCC supports the priorities and principles within the document and acknowledges the collaborative approach that the Otago Regional Council (ORC) has taken in developing the document, with DCC and the other territorial authorities across Otago.

3 The DCC has identified two aspects where we are seeking further consideration within the RPTP.

a) The DCC believes there should be greater emphasis placed on network and service planning in Dunedin, including considerations around the Bus Hub and existing transport infrastructure.

b) The DCC would like to see greater action and emphasis on increasing patronage, through promotion and marketing of the services.

Network and Service Planning in Dunedin

4 The Draft RPTP lists Dunedin as a medium-to low-growth city with a mature public transport network, and notes that any changes relating to this network will be focused on enhancing existing service areas. It is DCC’s view that this commentary does not reflect the demand on the network in Dunedin or the potential for further patronage growth, and the RPTP is instead focusing on serving the growth in Central Otago.

5 It is DCC’s view that there should be a stronger focus on network and service planning within Dunedin, addressing the challenges and limitations of the existing network, as well as opportunities for improvement.

6 For example, the Edgar Centre does not currently have any public transport connections but is a key hub for after school sports and activities. Lack of transport choice also restricts mode choice for parents; the need to transport others (particularly children) is a key reason why many employees drive to work.

7 The DCC has invested heavily in improving public transport infrastructure in recent years. To acknowledge the work undertaken and enable ongoing improvements, DCC recommends a network review be undertaken, to provide certainty about future routes and bus stops.

a) Undertaking a network review would provide a holistic understanding of where changes should be made to benefit the community, and the efficiency of the network.

b) A network review could be undertaken on a route basis, making incremental changes over a longer period, rather than trying to identify all issues on the network at one time. This could be managed through the procurement process when tendering new contracts.

8 The DCC recommends reviewing the Dunedin Bus Hub to identify potential constraints with location or capacity, with the forecast changes presented in the RPTP. As part of reviewing the bus hub, the DCC recommends consideration of how timetable modifications may impact operations.

Promotion

9 The DCC notes that there are limited actions relating to promotion of the service across the region. While DCC acknowledges the challenging funding environment that currently exists, promotion of public transport is paramount in growing patronage, reducing emissions, and reducing reliance on private vehicles.

10 As part of promoting public transport, DCC recommends additional actions be included around collaboration with DCC. This is an important aspect of our Connecting Dunedin partnership and DCC would like to see stronger initiative from ORC working with DCC’s sustainable travel team on public transport initiatives.

General Consultation Questions

Topic 1: Are we focusing on the right things in the plan?

11 The DCC agrees that the focus areas within the plan capture Otago’s transport priorities.

Topic 2: Should we support community transport services in smaller towns and rural areas?

12 The DCC agrees that ORC should have a role in supporting regional community transport services.

13 Dunedin is a primary centre for the smaller towns and rural areas, and providing access to essential services is something important for ORC to support. Currently many people in regional centres need to access healthcare in Dunedin, but have limited transport options to do so, with most people reliant on private transport.

Topic 3: Should we increase our passenger fares?

14 The DCC acknowledges there is pressure from central government around Public Transport Authorities (PTAs) increasing their private share contribution.

15 The DCC wants to work with ORC to keep fares low, which aligns with DCC targets for lowering emissions and increasing mode shift. Fares are a key driver for mode shift, and keeping low fares helps make public transport affordable and equitable.

Topic 4: Should we charge more for longer trips?

16 The DCC supports ORC charging a higher fare for longer trips.

17 Charging a greater fare for longer distances travelled provides a greater parity for users on the network and will help reduce the cost of running the service to outlying areas. Resident of some outlying areas are disadvantaged in terms of transport options. To ensure they can still access essential services; we support continuing concessionary schemes to maintain affordability of fares.

Topic 5: Should we keep our free fares for children (5-12 years)?

18 The DCC supports ORC retaining free fares for children ages 5-12 years.

19 Enabling and promoting children to use the bus from a young age helps foster confidence with using public transport and is likely to build lifelong habits. Supporting children to travel on public transport can reduce pressure on caregivers, helping reduce reliance on private vehicles at school gates (as an example).

20 The DCC supports ORC standardising the concession discount for youth aged 13-18 years.

Conclusion

21 The DCC appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft RPTP 2025-2035. We encourage ORC to consider the points raised in this submission, to help enable the ongoing growth and success of the Dunedin Public Transport network.

22 The DCC looks forward to continuing its collaboration with ORC to deliver on the actions outlined in the draft RPTP.

Council

15 April 2025

DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan & Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 - Q1/2 reporting

Department: Sustainability Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

22 This report presents for Council:

b) DCC’s organisational emissions (for sources with data available) for the period July 2024 – December 2024 (Q1/2), and

c) progress reporting for actions in the DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan and Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 over the same period.

23 DCC emissions reporting for the period is based on preliminary data and excludes a number of emissions sources that are monitored on an annual basis. It is a provisional snapshot of trends for the sources reported, rather than a complete and final picture of DCC emissions for the period.

24 Overall, the provisional data suggests DCC emissions from the sources included are 33% lower than the same period in baseline year, and 6% higher than the same period last year.

25 Q1/2 progress on actions in the Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 and the EMRP is separately assessed and presented, to enable progress at each scale to be separately considered by Council.

26 Progress on each action in both plans has been assessed with reference to anticipated delivery timeframes at time of Zero Carbon Plan and/or EMRP adoption.

27 Overall, 72% of Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 actions, and 51% of commenced EMRP actions, are on track to deliver emissions reduction objectives and be completed as scheduled. For most other actions anticipated emissions reductions are still likely to be fully or partially realised, albeit on a slower track.

28 Common reasons for projects that are subject to delays, scope contractions or discontinuation include Council activity/decisions, Government policy change, changes in other stakeholders’ priorities/timelines and resource or capacity pressures.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes DCC’s Q1/2 2024/25 organisational emissions, and

b) Notes the Q1/2 2024/25 reporting for the DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan, and the Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25.

BACKGROUND

The DCC’s Zero Carbon Policy directs that the organisation measure and aim to reduce emissions at two scales

29 In July 2022 Council adopted the Zero Carbon Policy (CNL/2022/049). The Policy formalises DCC’s intention to pursue emissions reduction at two scales – organisational (DCC emissions), and Dunedin-wide (city emissions).

30 As most of the DCC’s activities occur within the Dunedin boundary, there is overlap between DCC and city emissions. However, the key emissions sources, profile, and quantity of emissions differ significantly between the DCC and city scales.

31 This report provides reporting on:

a) DCC emissions for Q1/Q2 2024/25 and

b) Progress on actions to address both DCC and city emissions over the same period.

The Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 set outs DCC actions to reduce Dunedin’s emissions

32 Council resolutions over several years led to the development of a draft Zero Carbon Plan 2030 (the Plan). The Plan was adopted in September 2023 (CNL/2023/210).

33 The Plan sets out the overall shifts Dunedin will need to make to become a Zero Carbon city, and within that, action areas for the Dunedin City Council. Achieving the city’s targets will involve a wide range of government, community and business stakeholders: DCC leadership is essential, but partnerships and community activation are also critical to success.

34 A Zero Carbon implementation plan for the 2024/25 financial year was noted by Council in October 2024 (CNL/2024/194). This comprised of actions that could be progressed within existing budgets only (i.e. a subset of the indicative action list presented to Council at time of Zero Carbon Plan adoption in 2023).

DCC emissions are monitored and reported using a standard organisational methodology

35 DCC’s Zero Carbon Policy states that ‘the DCC will monitor, measure, report, manage, verify and publicly report DCC emissions on a regular basis in line with the requirements of ISO 14064’.

36 The scope of the DCC emissions managed and reported on are determined using the ‘operational control’ methodology. This includes activities undertaken by DCC staff (such as driving fleet cars, electricity usage) and emissions from DCC assets or services (such as LPG burnt at DCC pools, landfill gas from Green Island Landfill). It also includes emissions generated by significant suppliers undertaking work on behalf of the DCC, and emissions associated with some goods/consumables used in the course of DCC activity (e.g. chemicals for water treatment).

The DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2024-2031 sets out DCC emissions reduction targets and actions to reduce DCC emissions

37 The DCC maintains an Emissions Management and Reduction Plan (EMRP) which sets organisational targets and lays out how DCC intends to reduce emissions (actions for the period required to achieve targets). The DCC also produces an annual Inventory Management Report (IMR), which reports on the organisation’s annual emissions, along with progress against EMRP actions.

38 In June 2024, the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) adopted DCC’s EMRP for 2023/24 - 2030/31. Council noted the DCC’s EMRP at its 31 July 2024 meeting (CNL/2024/133).

39 The DCC’s ‘baseline year’ (the year against which progress is measured) is 2018/19[1]. The DCC’s organisational emissions reduction targets (as set out in the EMRP) are relative to baseline and are as follows:

b) a 2026/27 interim emissions target of a 30% reduction in annual tCO2e emissions compared with baseline year; and

c) a 2030/31 target of a 42% reduction in emissions compared with baseline year.

40 Because DCC emissions sources usually form part of the city’s emissions, there is a high degree of integration and overlap between the Zero Carbon Plan and the EMRP, with 90% of EMRP actions also reflected in the Zero Carbon Plan.

41 For example, waste entering Green Island landfill is a source of approximately 4% of Dunedin’s emissions. Because the DCC owns and manages Green Island landfill waste to landfill is also the DCC’s largest emissions source. Zero Carbon Plan actions to reduce the city’s waste are mirrored in the EMRP because they will also directly reduce DCC emissions.

The DCC has made progress on organisational emissions reduction, but sustained effort will be required to meet EMRP targets

42 Emissions modelling completed in early 2024 estimated that completion of all EMRP projects would deliver a 38% reduction in emissions to 2030/31.

43 Data for the 2023/24 financial year shows DCC achieved a 29.75% reduction in overall emissions compared to 2018/19. This reduction represented significant progress towards the 2026/27 interim emissions target, with the DCC falling only 208 tCO2e short of achieving it in 2023/24.

44 Modelling is currently being updated to reflect draft 9 year plan decisions and other changes in context, with the results due to be reported back to Council in May 2025.

Adherence to the EMRP is a condition of participation in the Local Government Financing Agency’s (LGFA) Climate Action Loans programme

45 The DCC’s Zero Carbon Policy EMRP and annual Inventory Management Report are submitted to the Local Government Financing Agency’s (LGFA) Climate Action Loans programme to enable borrowing at a discounted rate. Remaining on track to achieve EMRP targets (and demonstrating this through annual and more in-depth three-yearly LGFA reviews) is a prerequisite to maintaining access to the programme.

DISCUSSION

Provisional DCC emissions data Q1/Q2 2024/25

46 Attachment A presents a summary of DCC’s emissions (for sources with data available) over the first two quarters of 2024/25 financial year, broken down by emissions source. Where possible, performance is compared with the same period in both the baseline year and the 2023/24 financial year.

47 This reporting is based on preliminary data and excludes a number of emissions sources that are monitored on an annual basis. Ministry for the Environment (MfE) emissions factors have been used – once 2025 factors are released, these will be applied and are likely to materially change results for some emissions sources (e.g. electricity consumption). The data presented is therefore a provisional snapshot of trends for the sources reported, rather than a complete and final picture of DCC emissions for the period.

Summary of emissions trends from sources included

48 Overall, the provisional data suggests DCC emissions from the sources included are:

a) 33% lower than the same period in baseline year[2]

b) 6% higher than the same period last year

49 Significant sources that are trending down relative to baseline, and either down or very similar relative the same period in 2023/24 include:

a) Waste to Landfill emissions (57% lower than in 2019/20; 1.3% down compared with same period 2023/24). An expanded kerbside collection service began on 1 July 2024, including offering weekly organics collection and a switch from rubbish bags to red wheelie bins for general waste. This change in kerbside service increased the number of households using DCC kerbside waste collections, with a 3% increase in the tonnage of waste to Green Island landfill in July to December 2024 compared with July to December 2023. Despite a higher tonnage received at the landfill in 2024/25 compared to the same period in 2023/24, improved collection and destruction of landfill gas resulted in lower emissions in the first six months of this reporting period.

b) Closed landfill emissions (22% lower than 2019/20; 5.6% down compared with the same period 2023/24). Emissions from closed landfills will continue to reduce without active intervention.

c) Stationary diesel emissions (12% lower than 2018/19; 1.5% down compared with the same period 2023/24). Ongoing optimisation of the incinerator at the Tahuna wastewater treatment plant resulted in less stationary diesel consumption in the first six months of the 2024/25 reporting period. This was somewhat offset by a greater number of wet weather events triggering use of diesel-powered pumps elsewhere in the 3 Waters network, relative to the 2023/24 year.

d) Emissions from electricity consumption (43% lower than in 2018/19; 1.2% up compared with the same period 2023/24). Emissions from this source are a function of DCC electricity usage and the proportion of renewables in the national grid – results will change once MfE emissions factors are updated. Electricity usage is slightly up on the same period last year, and 24% lower than baseline.

50 More minor sources that are also trending down relative to both baseline and the same period in 2023/24 include:

a) Air travel emissions (75% lower than 2018/19; 53% down compared with the same period 2023/24).

b) Private car use emissions (51% lower than 2018/19; 55% down compared with the same period 2023/24).

c) Emissions from hotel stays, taxis and rental cars (11% lower than 2020/21; 35% down compared with the same period 2023/24).

51 Significant sources that are increasing or remain materially higher than in baseline year include:

a) Stationary LPG emissions (42% higher than in 2018/19; 5.7% up compared with the same period 2023/24). Key drivers for the variance relative to Q1/2 2023/24 include the heat recovery system at Moana Pool being offline for a portion of Q1 2024/25 as well as an increased demand for cremations.

b) Emissions from the biological treatment of wastewater (not comparable with 2019/20 baseline due to a change in methodology; 4.4% down compared with the same period 2023/24). The methodology used to account for emissions changed in 2023/24 leading to an overall increase compared to the same period in the baseline year (more accurate time series data). Recently, staff identified some data relating to the amount of sludge removed from wastewater during the treatment process was missing from the calculations in 2023/24. This led to a relative decrease in emissions for 2023/24 once this data was backfilled.

c) Emissions from activity undertaken by major suppliers (18% higher than in 2021/22; 19% up compared with the same period 2023/24). The main causes of this increase are significantly higher emissions associated with kerbside waste, recycling and organics collections (in part due to the short-term requirement to truck organics to Timaru), and an increase in roading maintenance emissions compared with 2023/24.

52 Other minor emissions sources are trending as follows:

a) Emissions from diesel fleet fuel (11% higher than in 2018/19; 5.2% up compared with the same period 2023/24)

b) Emissions from petrol fleet fuel (47% lower than in 2018/19; 6.3% up compared with the same period 2023/24)

Additions to the DCC’s emissions inventory

53 Two new emissions sources have been introduced into reporting during the period:

a) The addition of emissions from composting reflects the introduction of the DCC’s kerbside food and garden collection service, which since 1 July 2024 is being composted at a Timaru facility. While there are some emissions associated with composting food and garden waste, these are significantly lower than if the same material was deposited in landfill, and ensures the organic material can be beneficially re-used. The emissions associated with trucking this material from Dunedin to Timaru are reported in the Major Suppliers emissions.

b) The addition of emissions from biomass recognises that with the opening of Te Puna o Whakaehu Mosgiel Pool, this emissions source has become more significant in the DCC’s inventory (previously having only been used at the Botanic Gardens). Both sites are now reporting consumption data.

Overall approach to progress reporting for actions to reduce emissions

54 Due to the considerable overlap between actions in the Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 and the EMRP, 6 month reporting for both plans been developed in tandem. However, in this section progress on each plan is separately assessed and presented, to enable progress at each scale to be separately considered by Council.

55 Each action in both plans has been assessed using the following RAG criteria (applied with reference to anticipated delivery timeframes at time of Zero Carbon Plan and/or EMRP adoption):

Green	Amber	Red
Project is on track to deliver any emissions reduction objectives, and to be completed as scheduled.	Project is not on track to meet emissions reduction objectives, and/or project is subject to minor delays or reduction in scope.	Emissions are likely to be significantly higher than predicted for this project, and/or project is subject to major delays or reduction in scope.

56 Where emissions reductions from a project are now considered unlikely to be realised by 2030/31 (the target year at both scales), it is reported as red.

Progress against the Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25

57 The Zero Carbon Plan implementation plan 2024/25 includes 104 actions, split across Specific Timebound Projects (57 actions) and BAU (47 actions). Most actions were planned to span several years, but all were anticipated to be at least partially progressed within 2024/25.

58 The implementation plan included 13 actions classified as ‘priority actions’ in the Zero Carbon Plan due to these having relatively higher potential to contribute to emissions reduction than other projects under the relevant action area. Priority actions in the 2024/25 implementation plan include:

a) Improving Green Island gas capture

b) Working with community, business partners on resource recovery and circular economy

c) Building Zero Carbon considerations into the Economic Development Strategy and implementation of the Destination Management Plan

d) Facilitating car share, and development of a Parking Management Policy

e) Implementing the Zero Carbon Policy and procurement approach

f) Working with partners, including the ORC, DCHL companies, and the Zero Carbon Alliance.

59 Appendix B sets out the status and provides commentary on all Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 actions, split into ‘Specific Time-bound Projects’ and ‘BAU actions’ in line Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel direction. Within each, actions are presented by Zero Carbon Plan action area. The status is assessed based on the criteria set out in paragraph 55, above.

60 Overall, 75 actions (72%) are rated as green, 24 (23%) as amber and 5 (5%) as red. Proportionately more BAU actions meet green criteria, as follows:

	Green	Amber	Red
Specific Time-bound Projects	37 (65%)	16 (28%)	4 (7%)
BAU actions	38 (81%)	8 (17%)	1 (2%)

Progress against the EMRP 2024-2031

61 The EMRP includes 76 actions[3]. Most actions were planned to span several years. Some were completed in 2023/24, and some are not scheduled to commence until 2025/26 or beyond, however the majority were anticipated to be at least partially progressed within 2024/25.

62 Attachment C sets out the status and provides commentary on the actions linked to the DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan. The status is assessed based on the criteria set out in paragraph 55, above.

63 9 actions have not yet commenced. Of the 67 that have, 34 (51%) actions are rated as green, 27 (40%) as amber and 6 (9%) as red.

Commentary on actions subject to delays or scope contractions

64 Amber/red ratings generally reflect actions slowing, changing or stopping (either temporarily or permanently) due to:

· Council activity/decisions (e.g. draft 9 year plan decisions, Grants Review)

· Government policy changes (e.g. new Government Policy Statement Land Transport)

· Changes in other stakeholders’ priorities/timelines (e.g. delays to the Land & Water Plan, ZCA work programme priorities)

· Resource or capacity pressures (e.g. insufficient staff resource, other work programme priorities, insufficient funding to realise the original scope)

65 In most cases, anticipated emissions reductions are still likely to be fully or partially realised, albeit on a slower track.

OPTIONS

66 As this report is for noting only, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

Full year reporting

67 DCC’s full year organisational emissions will be independently audited and presented to Council in the annual Inventory Management Report in late 2025. A full year report on the Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 will be presented to Council at the same time.

EMRP implementation

68 A report is being prepared for May Council updating both Zero Carbon Plan (Dunedin) and EMRP (DCC) emissions modelling to reflect Council decisions on the draft 9 year plan and other changes in context.

69 The EMRP and Zero Carbon Plan implementation plans for 2025/26 onwards are subject to Council decisions on the upcoming 9 Year Plan. Both will be finalised following decisions of Council on the final shape of the 9 year plan.

Signatories

Author:

Carsten Dortans - Senior Policy Analyst - Zero Carbon

Rory McLean - Senior Policy Analyst

Jinty MacTavish - Principal Policy Advisor Sustainability

Authoriser:

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	DCC emissions report - Q1/2 24/25	65
⇩b	Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 Q1/2 update	67
⇩c	Emissions Management and Reduction Plan Q1/2 update	79

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

Implementation of the Zero Carbon Plan and EMRP promotes the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future, by facilitating the transition to a low carbon economy.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Zero Carbon Plan, DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan, Zero Carbon Policy

Māori Impact Statement

A critical Treaty of Waitangi analysis was prepared previously as part of the Zero Carbon work programme. This indicated that, in general, taking action to reduce emissions is aligned with Treaty of Waitangi obligations because a wide range of taonga are at risk from climate change. However, individual projects will need to consider Te Taki Haruru and incorporate mana whenua and mātāwaka inputs when delivered.

Sustainability

Climate change mitigation/emissions reduction efforts are considered key to sustainability. ‘Climate Action’ is one of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, reflecting the centrality of action on climate change to the achievement of sustainable development. Without significant cuts to emissions, climate change impacts will further accelerate, with commensurate negative impacts on the social, environmental, cultural and economic wellbeing of New Zealand communities. Conversely, actions to reduce emissions generally have significant co-benefits in terms of community wellbeing.

Zero carbon

The report presents an update on implementation of the DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan and the Zero Carbon Plan. The plans are designed to reduce emissions at both DCC and city scales.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications from this report for the LTP or Annual Plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

This report is considered low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement as part of developing this report.

Engagement - internal

There has been extensive internal engagement in the preparation of this report. All lead teams have been consulted to develop the reporting status and associated commentary.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

As stated in the report, remaining on track to achieve EMRP targets is a prerequisite to maintaining access to the Local Government Financing Authority’s Climate Action Loan programme.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified

Community Boards

No implications for Community Boards have been identified.

Council

15 April 2025

Pilot for a construction and demolition resource recovery system

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Enabling construction waste to be reduced, re-used, and recycled is an action area in the Zero Carbon Plan 2030, and is supported by proposed actions in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025.

2 This report updates the Council on a proposed pilot for a construction and demolition resource recovery system in Dunedin. The proposal was established by the Environmental Innovation Centre, in partnership with industry, to service Dunedin construction and waste sectors. Approval is sought for a financial contribution towards the feasibility study.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Supports in principle the proposed pilot construction and demolition resource recovery system.

b) Approves the allocation of $33,000 from 2024/2025 waste levy funding to support the feasibility stage of the pilot project.

c) Notes the outcomes of the feasibility study will be reported back to Council to consider whether to support and provide funding for the full pilot project.

BACKGROUND

3 An update on the Community Led Resource Recovery and Construction Industry Waste Reduction work was presented to Council at its meeting of 10 December 2024 –

Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Notes the Community Led Resource Recovery and Construction Industry Waste Reduction Update.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/241)

4 The 10 December 2024 report outlined the intention to prepare Business Cases for the two linked projects and to present these to the Infrastructure Services Committee before the end of June 2025.

5 In early 2025, an opportunity was identified to work with industry operators, materials manufacturers, and KiwiRail on a pilot construction waste diversion project in Dunedin. This would test methods of diverting construction materials, prioritising local reuse and recycling. As there are not local reprocessing options for treated timber, plasterboard, and construction related plastics, the pilot would test the logistics of diverting these materials to other onshore locations via rail, utilising freight containers that would otherwise be returning north empty.

DISCUSSION

6 Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste comprises multiple waste streams, many of which have the potential for being reusable or recyclable resources. C&D waste disposal and / or poor waste management can have a negative impact on the environment, such as rapidly filling up landfills, resource use that is linear rather than circular, and the release of plastics and other harmful or potentially hazardous wastes into the environment. It can also contribute to our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as both increased embodied carbon in building materials when sent to landfill, and from building materials degrading in landfilling conditions, especially wood product waste.

7 Across New Zealand there is increasing impetus for council and local industry led solutions. Through engagement with local industry stakeholders, and across the country, there is an acknowledgement of the challenges faced in Dunedin and an appetite by businesses to reduce their C&D waste. Much of this waste comprises wood products, plasterboard, and plastics.

8 In Dunedin, there are minimal resource recovery options to separate and recover these waste streams, and limited markets for recycling them. Even if these materials are separated and diverted from landfill (which could be done on a construction site and consolidated at a dedicated resource recovery facility), there is a lack of local and South Island wide reprocessing infrastructure.

9 Long-haul trucking of materials to locations which have the necessary infrastructure is logistically challenging, economically unviable, and environmentally harmful - mainly due to the high amount of transport emissions. There are also missed opportunities to support the local economy and growth. Therefore, the practice of separating these construction wastes to divert them from landfill is currently ineffectual in Dunedin (and for much of the South Island).

10 The Green Island resource recovery park will eventually incorporate a C&D sorting area, with delivery planned in 2027. However, without market pathways for the various materials, this will not in itself deliver meaningful diversion from landfill. Community based re-use and repurposing is the priority objective, but there will still be materials that cannot be re-used and need to be sent elsewhere for recycling.

11 During 2024, the Waste and Environmental Solutions team supported in principle a Waste Minimisation Fund application to develop sustainable options for timber re-use, recycling, and biofuel. This involved transporting hard to recycle C&D waste by rail, using containers that otherwise return north empty. The fund application was submitted by the Environmental Innovation Centre but supported by a range of industry partners. Although intended to be New Zealand wide, it involved a Dunedin-based resource recovery trial.

12 Ultimately, the project was declined funding by the Ministry for the Environment as it did not meet their revised investment criteria. The industry partners have however remained supportive and wish to pursue a pilot project focused on Dunedin. They have identified opportunities to move treated timber, plasterboard, and plastics such as PVC pipes, north by rail for reprocessing. Depending on the material, it would either go to Christchurch or on to Auckland.

13 The Environmental Innovation Centre is an independent, science-based consultancy that has a track record of building partnerships with industry, government, and academia to find practical and viable solutions to construction waste. For example, through government investment via the Plastics Innovation Fund, they partnered with Aliaxis (Marley) and WMNZ (Waste Management) and worked to find solutions to plastics waste. One of the outputs of that project was a web-based resource called Wastehub.

14 Recovering and reprocessing wood waste, plasterboard, and construction plastics enhances both local and nationwide resource efficiency. Central government investment through the Waste Minimisation Fund also prioritises C&D resource recovery infrastructure and systems.

15 A pilot C&D resource recovery project would provide proof of concept to support the planned C&D sorting area at the Green Island resource recovery park and assist with planning for a central resource recovery hub site. If successful, the rail-based system could be extended to Otago and Southland, and to other areas of the country. The findings would help to inform the council’s longer-term approach to construction waste reduction, ensuring that the wider C&D project plan is robust and deliverable.

16 The overarching desired outcome of the pilot project is to enable Dunedin’s construction and waste sectors to reduce C&D waste and related greenhouse gas emissions, and to stimulate circular economy opportunities. This is in line with DCC’s strategic direction and priorities set in the Zero Carbon Plan 2023, the 10-year Plan 2021-2031, and the proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025.

17 The following eight investment criteria will be used to ensure that the overarching outcome is achievable at both Stage Gate reviews:

i. Is a feasible, deliverable, cost-effective and value-for-money solution, achievable in long-term resource recovery and waste planning for DCC and the communities it serves.

ii. Meets the requirements of the waste disposal levy provisions for local authority spending in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, and DCC policy on investment, procurement, and spending.

iii. Meets all applicable local district and regional plans, regulation, and overarching legislation.

iv. Will provide the information and data-driven evidence to ensure a significant, sustainable long-term, and measurable reduction in C&D waste going to landfill and stimulating a circular economy.

v. Will incorporate Te Ao Māori perspectives where possible and consult with key stakeholders including iwi/hapū as relevant.

vi. Will support and enable local industry, businesses, the public sector, and the community that interact with activities in the C&D and waste sectors to reduce C&D waste and enhance behaviour change.

vii. Will identify and enable promotion of good practice in C&D waste and emissions reduction and show regional and nationwide leadership.

viii. Direct action to help implement the Zero Carbon Plan 2023, the 10-year Plan 2021-2031, and the proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025.

18 The pilot is proposed to commence on 1 July 2025 and projected to take a year to complete, in three stages:

Task	Estimated duration	Estimated completion
Stage 1 – Feasibility/desktop analysis	4 months	31 October 2025
Stage 2 - Pilot trial	6 months	30 April 2026
Stage 3 - Evaluation, reporting, recommendations	2 months	30 June 2026

19 The pilot project is expected to deliver valuable information about what level of diversion is practicable for C&D waste from Dunedin construction sites, which in turn will assist future DCC and industry investment decisions. Attachment A sets out more detail about the proposed approach and stages for the full pilot project.

20 A rough estimated order of total cost (+/-30%) for the full three-stage pilot project is $290,000, with the total contribution by Council likely to be approximately one third of this, subject to the partnering arrangements determined in the Stage 1 (feasibility) portion of the project.

21 To date, four reputable private businesses and public agencies from the construction, transport, and waste sectors have confirmed their commitment to be pilot project industry partners. At present, there is a commitment to contribute a total of $115,000 towards the full 3-stage project, either as a financial contribution or in kind. Further contributions are anticipated, with at least $25,000 additional financial contribution currently being discussed.

22 Decisions will be required on the following Stage Gates:

a) Stage Gate 1: for approval by Council - for in principle agreement to the three-stage pilot study project and approval of $33,000 from 2024-2025 waste levy funding to complete the first stage (feasibility / desk top analysis) as recommended in this paper.

b) Stage Gate 2: Consideration to proceed and fund a project plan for Stages 2 & 3 - for determination by Council, having reviewed the outcomes of Stage 1 (expected in October) against the following criteria:

i) Confirmation of the proposed sites for waste transfer and loading.

ii) Agreement between the local delivery partners to how this would work on the ground – the proposed process for moving the containers, loading the waste products, and returning them to the rail network.

iii) Proposed method of recording the type, volume and weight of materials entering the rail network – how will impact be evaluated?

iv) Demonstration of viable end uses for the hard to recycle materials and how they will be tracked to the reprocessing facility(s).

v) Confirmation of the main industry partners and other contributors – written agreements in place.

vi) Short-list of construction sites that will be active during the full pilot and agreement to be included in the pilot.

vii) Proposals for separating out the materials that can be reused and reprocessed locally, prior to determining what requires rail transportation.

23 A successful feasibility study will refine the scope and costings for pilot stages 2 and 3 and should help to bring additional industry partners on board. It is proposed that Council considers the outcomes of the feasibility study once complete and, if appropriate, approves the release of a further contribution from waste levy funding. The waste levy funding available in 2025/2026 is sufficient to cover the anticipated DCC contribution toward the full pilot project.

24 It is proposed the financial contribution to the Stage 1 feasibility study will be in the form of a non-contested grant, and subject to completion of a memorandum of understanding (MoU). Any further contribution made towards the pilot trial and evaluation stages (2 and 3) will require agreement by Council and a comprehensive MoU, as there will be a wider range of contributing partners. This will be confirmed at the Stage Gate 2 approval process.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended option – In principle agreement for a three-stage pilot project for a construction and demolition resource recovery system and approval for $33,000 to deliver the feasibility study.

Impact assessment

25 This option will help to identify the full benefits, risks, and estimated costs associated with an effective and connected C&D waste recovery, transportation, and waste reprocessing system.

Debt

Rates

Zero carbon

· Emissions are likely to decrease.

Advantages

· The pilot will provide robust evidence and information, and help to build collaborative partnerships with industry partners, before committing to any system change, or significant future planning and investment.

· The pilot will lay the foundation for future commitment and investment from all interested parties in Dunedin’s waste and resource recovery system, including central government.

Disadvantages

· No disadvantages have been identified.

Option Two – Status Quo

Impact assessment

26 This option incorporates already planned and committed expenditure for delivery of the C&D sorting facility at Green Island.

Debt

Rates

Zero carbon

· Emissions are likely to decrease.

Advantages

· The Waste Futures project is already being delivered, with a Resource Recovery Park which will serve as a large consolidation point for C&D resource recovery.

Disadvantages

· Construction of the C&D sorting facility at Green Island will not be completed until 2027 and will not provide a centrally located consolidation point near rail connected transportation, to support transfer of Dunedin’s treated timber, plasterboard, and construction related plastics to other parts of the country to be reprocessed.

· If the pilot project does not proceed, there will be a gap in the information and data-driven evidence to support a significant, sustainable long-term, and measurable reduction in C&D waste going to landfill.

NEXT STEPS

27 If Council approves in principle support for the pilot study, and a financial contribution to the feasibility stage, a memorandum of understanding will be prepared. This will incorporate the criteria listed under paragraph 21 (b) points i) to vii) for evaluation of the feasibility stage.

28 The outcomes from the feasibility stage will be reported back to Council in October and help inform the council’s project plan for the wider strategic C&D work.

Signatories

Author:

Karen Gadomski - Waste Planning Advisor, Construction and Demolition

Authoriser:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Preferred option - approach and stages	93

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future and promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Other: fits with Zero Carbon Policy, Zero Carbon Plan, DCC Emissions Management & Reduction Plan, and the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025.

Māori Impact Statement

The C&D resource recovery pilot project will seek to incorporate Te Ao Māori perspectives at the feasibility stage and identify how iwi and hapū could participate in the full pilot study.

Sustainability

The C&D resource recovery pilot project aims to increase environmental resilience through reduced emissions and a circular approach to using C&D materials. This will support and enable the reuse of C&D materials by local businesses and communities. It will assist the council and its Zero Carbon Alliance partners to achieve long-term economic and environmental gains.

Zero carbon

A decrease in greenhouse gas emission will be achieved through the diversion of methane emitting materials from landfill, and the transport of treated timber, plasterboard, and construction related plastics via rail rather than road.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for current levels of service or performance measures.

Financial considerations

The current estimate for delivery of the three-stage C&D resource recovery pilot project is $290,000, although this figure will be refined during the feasibility stage. There will be no impact on ratepayers, as any DCC contributions will be taken from waste levy funding.

Significance

This decision is considered to be of medium significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

To date, engagement has been with construction industry stakeholders, who have offered financial and in-kind support for the C&D resource recovery pilot project.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement to date.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

A Memorandum of Understanding will need to be prepared, to support the appropriate and effective use of waste levy funding.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

15 April 2025

Financial Report - Period ended 28 February 2025

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides the financial results for the period ended 28 February 2025 and the financial position as at that date.

2 As this is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations.

Financial Overview

For the period ended 28 February 2025

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Financial Performance for the period ended 28 February 2025 and the Financial Position as at that date.

BACKGROUND

3 This report provides the financial statements for the period ended 28 February 2025. It includes reports on financial performance, financial position, cashflows and capital expenditure. Summary information is provided in the body of this report with detailed results attached. The operating result is also shown by group, including analysis by revenue and expenditure type.

DISCUSSION

4 This report includes a high-level summary of the financial information to 28 February 2025. Please refer to Attachment I for the detailed financial update.

Statement of Financial Performance

5 Revenue was $262.168 million for the period or $3.328 million less than budget.

6 Operating revenue (external and internal combined) was unfavourable $746k mainly due to lower-than-expected revenue from the Parking Services, Aquatic Services, Resource Consents and Building Services activities.

7 Grants revenue was unfavourable $3.303 million reflecting funding decisions by NZTA under the National Land Transport Programme, and timing of the transport contractor work programme.

8 Expenditure was $287.612 million for the period, or $13.070 million less than budget.

9 Personnel costs was unfavourable $455k, reflecting overtime payments for 3 waters and union negotiated contract increases, which is being managed with vacancy management. The month of February showed an unfavourable variance of $127k, partly driven by changes in the annual leave provision.

10 Operations and maintenance expenditure was favourable $3.032 million; however, this favourable variance was offset by an unfavourable $1.418 million variance in internal costs, largely due largely to landfill disposal costs for kerbside collections now recorded as internal costs. Unfavourable Transport maintenance costs are more than offset by under expenditure in other activities, including Three Waters and Waste and Environmental Services. Transport costs included emergency works totalling $1.933 million associated with the October rain event.

11 Depreciation costs were favourable $9.414 million, mainly due to the revaluation of Three Waters assets, and to a lesser extent Property and Parks assets.

12 Interest costs were favourable $2.898 million, reflecting a lower interest rate than budgeted and the timing of new loan advances.

13 Year to date the Waipori Fund has reported a net operating surplus of $7.872 million, $4.921 million more than budget. Operating revenue was favourable $4.926 million. Australian and New Zealand equities saw decreases in value during February, partly offset however by an increase in value for international equities. Fixed term investments values saw an increase in value for the month, maintaining favourable results for the year to date.

Statement of Financial Position

14 Capital expenditure was $92.815 million or 68.3% of the year-to-date budget. Capital expenditure in most activities was generally within budget for the period.

15 The loans balance at 28 February was $638.973 million which was $40.000 million less than budget. This a reflection of the capital expenditure programme, which was underspent by $43.137 million to February. Additional to the February loans balance there was accrued interest of $3.734 million.

16 Attachment B includes a chart showing actual group and DCC debt for the years ending June 2003-2024. It provides forecast information for the years ending June 2024-2027 based on the current Statements of Intent (SOI), and the first two years of the draft 9-year plan.

OPTIONS

17 As this is an administrative report only, there are no options provided.

NEXT STEPS

18 Financial Result Reports continue be presented to future meetings of either the Finance and Council Controlled Organisation Committee or Council.

Signatories

Author:	Hayden McAuliffe - Financial Services Manager
Authoriser:	Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Dashboard Summary Financial Information	98
⇩b	Debt Graph	99
⇩c	Statement of Financial Performance	100
⇩d	Statement of Financial Position	101
⇩e	Statement of Cashflows	102
⇩f	Capital Expenditure Summary	103
⇩g	Capital Expenditure Detailed Programme	104
⇩h	Operating Variances	111
⇩i	Detailed Financial Update	112

[1] For some emissions sources the reporting methodology has changed since 2018/19, or data is unavailable due to the emissions source being recently added to the inventory. Where this is the case, the earliest data available has been assumed to represent baseline.

[3] The original EMRP included 81 actions. Similar actions have been consolidated for reporting purposes.

Mayor	Mayor Jules Radich
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr Bill Acklin	Cr Sophie Barker
	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr Christine Garey
	Cr Kevin Gilbert	Cr Carmen Houlahan
	Cr Marie Laufiso	Cr Mandy Mayhem
	Cr Jim O'Malley	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Steve Walker	Cr Brent Weatherall
	Cr Andrew Whiley