Agenda of Council - Monday, 26 May 2025

Council

26 May 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Wednesday 30 April 2025, commencing at 10:00 a.m.

PRESENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Robert West (General Manager Corporate Services), Jeanette Wikaira (General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition), Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships) and Paul Henderson (Acting General Manager Customer & Regulatory), Simon Spiers (Team Leader Regulation Management), Abbey Chamberlain (Senior Transport Planner), Simone Handwerk (Transport Planning Team Leader), Maddie Pascoe (Transport Analyst), John McAndrew (Group Manager 3 Waters), Scott Campbell Regulation and Policy Team Leader 3 Waters), Chris Henderson (Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions), Leigh McKenzie (Waste Minimisation Strategy Officer), Sian Sutton (Dunedin Destination Manager), Dan Hendra (Team Leader Events), Mark Mawdsley (Team Leader Advisory Services), Jackie Harrison (Manager Governance) and Chad Baker (Regional System Design Advisor Waka Kotahi) and Matt Waight (Customer, Communications & Change Lead, Waka Kotahi)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

The Mayor acknowledged Jeanette Wikaira who was leaving on 9 May 2025. He thanked her for her mahi in her roles as Manahautū, General Manager Māori, Partnerships and Policy and her more recent role of General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation. He wished her well in her new role as Group Manager Community at the Thames-Coromandel District Council.

The Mayor acknowledged the passing of Pope Francis who had passed away on Easter Monday and his inspirational leadership and compassion.

The Catholic Bishop of Dunedin, the Most Reverend Michael Dooley, opened the meeting with a prayer.

2 Public Forum

2.1 Geoff Gabites

Mr Gabites (Owner Cycle Journeys and ex board member of New Zealand Cycle Trails) spoke on the risk of Dunedin missing out on a significant tourism boost if it did not connect to Otago’s cycle trail. Mr Gabites commented on the benefits of cycle tourism and noted the impact it had on the economy in Central Otago.

Mr Gabites responded to questions.

2.2 Kylie Ruwhiu-Karawana

Ms Ruwhiu-Karawana spoke on the opportunities walking/cycling tourism presented and commented that trails presented indigenous people the opportunity to connect to their tīpuna (ancestors), walk on the trails they walked on and share stories of their land with their tamariki.

Ms Ruwhiu-Karawana responded to questions.

2.3 Peter Foster

Mr Foster spoke of his frustration with issues he felt he incurred with the processing of land transfers with regard to subdivisions and road closures.

Mr Foster was advised to provide his concerns in writing to Council and they would be responded to.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas)

That the Council:

Extends the public forum beyond 30 minutes.

Motion carried

2.4 Kirsten Gibson, Manager South Dunedin Network

Ms Gibson (Manager, South Dunedin Network) expressed her disappointment on the Council decision to lease the top floor of the South Dunedin Community Complex without consultation with the community. She commented on the hui’s held in the past with discussions on how the top floor could be best used for community use.

Ms Gibson responded to questions.

Cr Steve Walker left the meeting at 10.48 am and returned at 10.50 am

2.5 Jo Millar, President, Grey Power

Ms Millar spoke on the decision to lease the top floor of the South Dunedin Community Complex. Ms Millar spoke of the importance of having community space which would play a pivotal role in community engagement and enable different community groups to gather together.

Ms Millar responded to questions and advised that community groups could not afford commercial rents but did expect to pay rental.

3 Apologies
	There were no apologies.

Crs Steve Walker and Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 10.59 am.

Cr Carmen Houlahan returned at 11.00 am and Cr Steve Walker at 11.01 am.

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/086)

5 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

b) Confirms the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

c) Notes the proposed management plan for the Executive Leadership Team’s Interests.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/087)

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 March 2025
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 26 March 2025 as a correct record. Motion carried (CNL/2025/088)
6.2 Ordinary Council meeting - 3 April 2025
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 03 April 2025 as a correct record. Motion carried (CNL/2025/089)

6.3 Ordinary Council meeting - 15 April 2025

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 15 April 2025 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/090)

Reports

7 Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings
	A report from Civic provided an update on the implementation of resolutions made at Council meetings.
	The General Manager Corporate Services (Robert West) responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings. Motion carried (CNL/2025/091)

8 Forward Work Programme for Council - April 2025
	A report from Civic provided the updated forward work programme for the 2025 year.
	The General Manager Corporate Services (Robert West) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council forward work programme as shown in Attachment A. Motion carried (CNL/2025/092)

9 Waka Kotahi / NZTA update on SH88 proposals for the Central City
	A report from Transport noted that the New Zealand Transport Agency was preparing to consult on its Dunedin State Highway 88 project and proposed changes near the New Dunedin Hospital on SH1.
	The Team Leader Regulation Management (Simon Spiers) and Regional System Design Advisor Waka Kotahi (Chad Baker) and Customer, Communications & Change Lead, Waka Kotahi (Matt Waight) spoke to a Power Point presentation on proposed changes to State Highways at hospital frontages and St Andrew St in response to the new hospital. Messrs Spiers, Baker and Waight responded to questions.
Cr Kevin Gilbert left the meeting at 11.38 am Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 12.08 pm and returned at 12.11 pm Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 12.10 pm and returned at 12.12 pm.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes that the NZTA was preparing to consult on its State Highway 88 project and proposed changes near the New Dunedin Hospital on SH1 Motion carried (CNL/2025/093) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

Moved (Mayor Radich/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 45 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.31 pm and reconvened 1.16 pm.

10 Submission on ORC Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035
	A report from Transport sought approval for a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-2035.
	The General Manager Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), Senior Transport Planner (Abbey Chamberlain) and Transport Planning Team Leader (Simone Handwerk) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Approves 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. Motion carried (CNL/2025/094) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against

11 Speed Limit Reversal List to be Submitted Under the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024
	A report from Transport provided an update on the proposed list of speed limit reversals that were required to be submitted under the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024.
	The General Manager Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), Team Leader Regulation Management (Simon Spiers) and Transport Analyst (Maddie Pascoe) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Approves the submission to the Director of Land Transport, as required by the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024. Motion carried (CNL/2025/095)

12 Submission on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards
	A report from 3 Waters sought approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission to Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Authority on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards.
	The General Manager 3 Waters (David Ward), Group Manager 3 Waters (John McAndrew) and Regulation and Policy Team Leader 3 Waters (Scott Campbell) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Kevin Gilbert returned to the meeting at 1.48 pm. Check the recording at 1.48 pm.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Approves the draft DCC submission to Taumata Arowai on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards. b) Authorises the Mayor and/or his delegate to speak to the submission. c) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes if needed. Motion carried (CNL/2025/096)

13 Update on Bath Street Engagement and Design
	A report from Portfolio and Project Support Officer provided an update on stakeholder feedback on the Bath Street design and Rainbow Crossings, following a report to Council in December 2024. It noted that changes had been made to the design presented to Council in 2024 due to the need to remain within the available $1.5m budget. These included removal of the rainbow crossings, reducing the amount of paving, planting and artistic lighting.
	The General Manager Climate and Growth (Scott MacLean) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 2.39 pm and returned at 2.41 pm.
	Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Notes the Update on Bath Street Engagement and Design report Motion carried (CNL/2025/097)

14 Review of Enterprise Dunedin Update Report
	A report from Corporate Policy provided a summary of the work undertaken to date on the review of Enterprise Dunedin. It outlined the approach being taken to review Enterprise Dunedin.
	The Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships (Nicola Morand) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Bill Acklin left the meeting at 3.10 pm and returned at 3.18 pm. Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 3.17 pm and returned at 3.19 pm.
	Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Christine Garey): That the Council: a) Notes the report. Motion carried (CNL/2025/098) with Cr Vandervis recording his abstention.

15 Grants Subcommittee - External Representatives
	A report from Corporate Policy requested extending the terms of current non-Council members until 30 November 2025 to ensure continuity into the next triennium.
	The Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships (Nicola Morand) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Bill Acklin): That the Council: a) Extends the term of the non-Council representatives until 30 November 2025 to maintain continuity. b) Notes the process to appoint new non-Council representatives would be undertaken before the extended terms expire. Motion carried (CNL/2025/099)

16 Hearings Committee Recommendations on Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025
	A report from Civic presented the recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the amended Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 following public consultation. It sought approval for the adoption of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025.
	The General Manager Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), Chair of the Hearings Committee (Cr Jim O’Malley), Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions (Chris Henderson) and Waste Minimisation Strategy Officer (Leigh McKenzie) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Adopts the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 as amended. b) Approves a review of the Waste Minimisation Grants Framework to be completed in time for the 2026/27 Financial Year. c) Notes the Summary of Results from Submissions and the Summary of Recommendations from the Hearings Committee. d) Notes that the Hearings Committee has heard and considered submissions on the Draft WMMP 2025. e) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee. Motion carried (CNL/2025/100) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against.

17 New Year's Eve celebration event options
	A report from Events presented two options for the New Year’s Eve (NYE) celebration event.
	The Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships (Nicola Morand), Dunedin Destination Manager (Sian Sutton) and Team Leader – Events (Dan Hendra) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion Cr Brent Weatherall left the meeting at 4.17 pm and returned at 4.19 pm.
	Moved (Cr Bill Acklin/Cr David Benson-Pope): That the Council: a) Reinstates a Fireworks Display, shifting it to Robin Hood Park and providing a city-wide display. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, David Benson-Pope, Carmen Houlahan, Jim O'Malley, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Jules Radich (6). Against: Crs Sophie Barker, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker and Andrew Whiley (9). Abstained: Nil The division was declared LOST by 9 votes to 6 Motion carried (CNL/2025/101)
Moved: (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: Extends the meeting beyond 6 hours. Motion carried Moved (Mayor Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 4.45 pm and reconvened at 4.55 pm Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 4.55 pm.
	Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Requests that staff investigate a re-imagination of New Years Eve for 2025/26, including an option for a Hogmanay style event and report back with costed options by 30 July 2025. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Sophie Barker, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (9). Against: Crs Bill Acklin, David Benson-Pope, Carmen Houlahan, Jim O'Malley and Brent Weatherall (5). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5 Motion carried (CNL/2025/102)

18 Dunedin Heritage Fund Activity Report 2023-2024
	A report from City Development provided an update on the activity of the Dunedin Heritage Fund and the grants allocated in the 2023-2024 financial year.
	The General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition (David Ward), the Team Leader Advisory Services (Mark Mawdsley) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr David Benson-Pope): That the Council: a) Notes the Dunedin Heritage Fund Activity Report 2023-2024. Motion carried (CNL/2025/103)

Cr Sophie Barker left the meeting at 5.10 pm

19 Request to Lift Alcohol Ban in Lower Octagon 05 July 2025

A report from Civic and Events requested approval of a temporary lifting of the Dunedin Alcohol Ban in the Lower Octagon on 5 July 2025 as Dunedin would host a rugby test match between the All Blacks and France, with kick-off scheduled for 7:05pm.

It noted that staff proposed Council approve a temporary suspension of the Alcohol Ban in the Lower Octagon from 12:00pm to 7:00pm on the day.

Moved (Cr Bill Acklin/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Approves the temporary lifting of the Dunedin Alcohol Ban in the Lower Octagon on 5 July 2025 between 12.00 midday and 7.00 pm.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/104)

20 Proposed Event Road Closures

A report from Transport sought approval of the temporary closure of the affected roads for the May Graduation Parades and Dunedin Midwinter Carnival.

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

a) Resolves to close the roads detailed below (pursuant to Section 319, Section 342, and Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974)):

i) May Graduation Parades

Saturday, 10 May 2025 AND Saturday, 17 May 2025	11.00am to 11.45am	· Great King Street, between Frederick Street and Albany Street
	11.10am to 12.00pm	· Frederick Street, between Great King Street and George Street · George Street, between Frederick Street and Moray Place
	11.10am to 12.30pm	· Moray Place, between George Street and Upper Stuart Street · Filleul Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street
	11.30am to 12.15pm	· Intersection of George Street and Moray Place

ii) Dunedin Midwinter Carnival

Friday, 27 June 2025

AND

Saturday, 28 June 2025

3.00pm to 10.00pm*

· Moray Place, between Lower Stuart Street and Princes Street

· Burlington Street, between SH1 and Moray Place

* Contingency dates would be Friday, 4 July 2025 and Saturday, 5 July 2025.
NOTE: All Blacks vs France Rugby Test is on Saturday, 5 July 2025 (noting these dates have coincided previously).

Motion carried (CNL/2025/105)

Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 5.12 pm.

21 Notice of Motion - Revocation of Resolution - South Dunedin Library and Community Complex
	In accordance with Standing Order 26.1, the following Notice of Motion was received from Cr Carmen Houlahan
	Cr Houlahan spoke to the Notice of Motion.
	Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Revokes its decision to lease the Upper Level of the South Dunedin Library and Community Complex on a commercial lease basis; and b) Directs the CEO to pause work to implement the commercial lease arrangements; and c) Requests a report on options for community use of the Upper Level of the South Dunedin Library and Community Complex as part of the deliberations on the 9 year plan Division The Council voted by division For: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso and Steve Walker (5). Against: Crs Bill Acklin, Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Jules Radich (7). Abstained: Nil The division was declared LOST by 7 votes to 5 )

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 March 2025 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(d) The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public.	.
C2 Ordinary Council meeting - 15 April 2025 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	.
C3 Confidential Council Action List Update - April 2025	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme - April 2025	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(d) The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C5 Appointment of District Licensing Committee Members	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C6 Confirmation of Minutes - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/106)

The meeting moved into confidential at 5.46 pm and concluded at 6.39 pm.

..............................................

MAYOR

Council

26 May 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of the 9 Year Plan 2024-35 meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Monday 5 May 2025, commencing at 9:02 am.

PRESENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Robert West (General Manager Corporate Services), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition), Jeanette Wikaira (General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation), Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships), Paul Henderson (Acting General Manager Customer & Regulatory), Sharon Bodeker (Special Projects Lead), Anna Johnson (City Development Manager), Gina Hu’akau (Community Partnerships Manager), Janet Fraser (Corporate Planner), Jackie Harrison (Manager Governance)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson (Monday), Rebecca Murray (Tuesday), Jennifer Lapham (Wednesday) and Lauren Riddle (Thursday)

1 Apologies
	There was an apology from Cr David Benson-Pope.
	Moved (Cr Christine Garey/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: Accepts the apology from Cr David Benson Pope for absence on Monday 5 May 2025. Motion carried (CNL/2025/107)
2 Confirmation of agenda
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration Motion carried (CNL/2025/108)

3 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register and

b) Confirms the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

c) Notes the proposed management plan for the Executive Leadership Team’s Interests.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/109)

Reports

4 Hearings Scheduled for the 9 year plan and Local Water Done Well
	A report from Civic provided a schedule of submitters who wished to present at the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034 and Local Water Done Well hearings.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Hearings Schedule. Motion carried (CNL/2025/110)
6 Submissions
1131854		Francisca Griffin
		Ms Griffin spoke to her submission in support of funding an additional $137,000 annually to waged positions dedicated to the implementation of the points raised in the Ōtepoti Live Music Plan. She commented that these positions were essential for the plan to succeed. Ms Griffin responded to questions.
1132444		Michael Broughton, Dunedin Dark Skies Group
		Mr Broughton tabled information and spoke to the submission from the Dunedin Dark Skies Group in support of their submission to have light pollution in Dunedin addressed. He provided suggestions moving forward which include the reconvening of the Dark Sky Advisory Panel. Mr Broughton responded to questions.

1131256		Emily Cambridge and Slade Elliot , Southern Youth Development
		Ms Cambridge spoke to the submission from Southern Youth Development. She outlined the programmes they ran and the benefit to the youth in the community. Slade Elliot, a student of the programme spoke in support and commented on the benefits and that it introduced students to new aspects of life. Ms Cambridge requested that the community grant fund be increased, and commented that the budget had been capped at $5,000 for many years. To enable them to positively impact more youth across Dunedin, a greater budget was required. Ms Cambridge and Slade responded to questions.

1128952 1129355		Cheryl Neill and Robin Luff, Bella Monteith and Ivy Larkins, Portobello School
		Cr Andrew Whiley advised he had not participated in any discussion or submissions on Peninsula items. Ms Neill, (teacher and supporter) accompanied by Portobello School Pupils Robin Luff, Bella Monteith and Ivy Larkins presented on behalf of the Portobello School. They spoke in support of the completion of the Te Awa Ōtākou Peninsula Connection project and commented on safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists due to the condition of the road. Robin, Bella and Ivy commented on the issues with sections of the road dropping into the harbour and the increase in traffic and tourist buses with 150,000 tourists visiting annually. They urged Council to complete the Peninsula Connection project and responded to questions.
1130251		Tom Calvin, Summerset Group Holdings Limited (via Zoom)
Cr Steve Walker withdrew from this item.
		Mr Calvin spoke to the submission from Summerset Group Holdings Limited on the proposed Draft Development Contributions Policy. He commented that Summerset was New Zealand’s second largest developer and operator of retirement villages with 43 either completed or in development over New Zealand. Mr Calvin commented that Summerset supported the decrease in development contribution charges for retirement villages generally and provided information on reasons why they should be further reduced. Mr Calvin responded to questions.
Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting 10 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 9.54 am and resumed at 9.58 am

1130088		Cindy Diver and Janine Knowles Theatreworks Ltd, interACT drama classes and WOW! Productions Trust.
		Ms Diver and Ms Knowles spoke in support of the submissions against the proposal to remove the $17.1 million capital spend of the development of a mid-sized venue. Ms Diver spoke of the importance of the performing arts sector for the Dunedin community and urged Council to fund a new build purpose built theatre and to fund Te Whare o Rukutia in the meantime. Ms Diver responded to questions. .
Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 10:30am. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10.10 am and resumed at 10.30 am

1128891		Tim Vick (via zoom)
		Mr Vick spoke in support of his submission on the establishment of a destination playground in Dunedin. He suggested that the Council focus on the development of one destination playground rather than the current proposal to create three playgrounds with the $11.2 million cost to be included in the 9 year plan. He believed that three playgrounds would not have the same impact as one well-funded destination playground. Mr Vick commented that he and his family had visited the Margaret Mahy Family Playground in Christchurch many times. They would go out of their way to go to the playground and he believed the same would happen in Dunedin. Mr Vick responded to questions and commented that he believed the Woodhaugh Garden would be the most desirable location.

1130520		Nigel Harwood Mr Harwood spoke to his submission on Local Water Done Well and discussed his reasons that the in-house model was the right decision. Mr Harwood responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10.50 am and resumed at 10.59 am

1132447		Lee-Anne Anderson, Dunedin Netball Centre Inc
		Ms Anderson spoke to the submission from the Dunedin Netball on their support to re-roof the main hall of the Edgar Centre. She commented that in 2024, Dunedin Netball had held six season competitions with a total of 293 teams over four days of the week. During the local competition season, they were forced to cancel 34 games and 54 had to be moved or delayed due to unsafe court conditions caused by the leaking roof. Ms Anderson spoke of the importance of the Edgar Centre to the community and asked Council to include the cost of the roof replacement to be included in the 9 year plan 2025-34. Ms Anderson responded to questions.

1130839		Jeremy Anderson
		Mr Anderson spoke to a PowerPoint presentation on his submission on Dunedin Theatre Options. He commented that Dunedin needed a purpose built theatre and provided examples he felt would be beneficial. Mr Anderson responded to questions and advised that he believed Council should continue to fund a small black box theatre.

1131132		Mike Harrison
		Mr Harrison spoke to his submission in support of completion of the final three stages of Te Awa Ōtākou – Peninsula Connection. Mr Harrison commented on the history of the Peninsular Connection and that it was critical the project be completed. Mr Harrison responded to questions.

1130930		Heike Cebulla
		Ms Cebulla spoke to her submission and suggested that Council reconsider the $2.8 million allocated to maintenance of the grass verge, and use the money to offer a safe crossing for cyclists on Portsmouth Drive to and from Portobello Road. She provided suggestions on cheaper options to obtain the crossing. Ms Cebulla submitted a petition in support of the installation of a safe crossing. Ms Cebulla responded to questions.

Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 11.40 am and returned at 11.42 am.

1132489		Rebecca McLeod, Gretchen Robertson, and Hillary Lennox, Otago Regional Council
		Ms Robertson, Ms Lennox and Ms McLeod spoke to the Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) submission in support of the DCC’s climate ambition and the climate positive aspects of the 9 year plan 2024-35. They also discussed potential synergies with the ORC strategic direction. Ms Robertson, Ms Lennox and Ms McLeod responded to questions.
Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 11.51 am and returned at 11.54 am.

1130898		Martyn Roberts, Afterburner
		Mr Roberts sought immediate financial support for the Arts sector with the reinstatement of the annual professional theatre grant to enable professional theatre to remain in Dunedin and that the Playhouse would close within a year without support. He commented that a Theatre Action Plan was needed with a modest multi-purpose facility that supported Dunedin’s performing arts to enable Dunedin to become the best little city of creative arts. Mr Roberts responded to questions. He advised they could not access big scale funding without Council support.

1131474		Alan Somerville and Sue O’Neill, Abbeyfield Dunedin
		Mr Somerville (Chair) and Ms Sue O’Neill (Resident) spoke in support of the submission from Abbeyfield Dunedin to restore capital funding for expansion of community housing to the 9 year plan budget. Mr Sommerville explained that Abbeyfield House provided affordable accommodation for a group of 9-14 people over 65 to live within a family style, purpose built dwelling supported by a housekeeper/cook and a voluntary management committee. Ms O’Neill commented on her experience and the benefits of living at Abbeyfield. Mr Sommerville and Ms O’Neill responded to questions.
Cr Kevin Gilbert left the meeting at 12.12 pm and returned at 12.14 pm.

1132429		Edward Ellison, Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou
		Mr Ellison spoke to the submission from Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and their endorsement of the Te Awa Ōtākou Peninsula Connection project. Mr Ellison commented on climate events and their effects on the road and land in recent years and the necessity to complete the project. He asked Councillors to think of the issues faced, potential for accidents, the importance of that road to the peninsula, the city and tourism noting there was a large increase in numbers and faster traffic movement. Mr Ellison responded to questions.

1132894		Rhys Millar, Predator Free
Cr Steve Walker withdrew from this submission
		Mr Millar spoke to the submission on behalf of Predator Free. He commented on the work undertaken on the peninsula and advised that they were three possums away from declaring the peninsula possum free. Mr Millar requested that Council recommit $150k to Predator Free. Mr Millar advised they needed to prove that they had local support to enable them to access national support. Mr Millar responded to questions.
Cr Marie Laufiso left the meeting at 12.36 pm and returned at 12.37 pm.
1133025		Ann Barsby, Southern Heritage Trust Ms Barsby spoke to the submission on behalf of the Southern Heritage Trust and commented on the importance for Council to continue to progress heritage strategies. Ms Barsby noted that Dunedin was a main heritage city with heritage being a major attraction for those coming to Dunedin. Ms Barsby noted the need to develop and be more professional looking at the holistic approach.
During discussion Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 12.36 pm and returned at 12.40 pm.
Ms Barsby responded to questions.
Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 1.30 pm. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12.45 pm and resumed at 1.30 pm.

1130857		Edward Ellison
		Mr Ellison spoke to his submission in support of the completion of the Te Awa Ōtākou / Peninsula Connection. He commented on the relationship of the runaka and hapū to the city and urged Council to honour their promise to complete the cycle/walkway. Mr Ellison responded to questions.

1130185		Kim Hayward, Iconic Tours NZ Limited Mr Hayward spoke to his submission and in specific the Mosgiel to Caversham Tunnels cycleway. He spoke of the benefits cycleways had for the city and requested this remain in the 9 year plan 2025-34. Mr Hayward responded to questions.

1128480		Sulaiman Elyar Mr Elyar spoke of the erosion of the beach and sand dunes and the change needed to prevent further erosion of the dunes. He suggested there be a permanent fenced off area from St Kilda to St Clair to keep the human activity to the area. Mr Elyar spoke of the increase in traffic congestion once the new hospital was booked. Mr Elyar responded to questions.

1131602		Robyn Zink, Our Food Network Ms Zink spoke to the Our Food Network submission and their recommendations that the Council resource a 0.5 FTE to the Community Development Team, to have a food focus as access to enough healthy food was fundamental to community well-being; to resource Good Food Dunedin adequately to better support local small food businesses and to develop an action plan for a resilient and thriving local food system in partnership with the ORC. Ms Zink responded to questions.

1132007		Nicole Bezemer, Tomahawk Smaills BeachCare Trust
		Dr Bezemer spoke to the submission from the Tomahawk Smaills BeachCare Trust and advised that they were 25 years old having been initially formed in 2000 by a small group of friends. Dr Bezemer requested that Council continue to fund the planting of at least 1,000 trees annually for a minimum term of three years and increase their funding from $13k to $20k per annum to meet the actual costs of growing, planting and maintaining the trees. Dr Bezemer responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 3.10 pm. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 2.30 pm and resumed at 3.10 pm. Crs Bill Acklin and Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 2.30 pm.
Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Jim O’Malley) That the Council: Extends the meeting beyond 6 hours. Motion carried
1133050		Tania Williams, Araiteruru Marae Council Ms Williams spoke to the submission from the Araiteruru Marae Council. She commented that the Araiteuru Marae was not just a service provider but a taonga – an irreplaceable cultural, economic and social asset that was a safe place where people gather. She commented that they would like a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and funding grant of $160k to enable employment of staff to support the Araiteruru Marae. Ms Williams responded to questions.

1133042		Tania Williams Ms Williams spoke to key points in her submission which included the request that Council provide funding that honours partnership for the Araiteruru Marae Ms Williams responded to questions.

1131604		Geoff Patton, Mayfair Theatre Charitable Trust Mr Patton acknowledged and thanked Council for the money given to the Dunedin Theatre Network and commented that the Mayfair Theatre Charitable Trust received $33k and the Mayfair Theatre Charitable Trust had added another $35k which enabled structural assessment and solutions for an structural deficiencies. They now had concept plans on how the theatre could be redeveloped. He spoke of the need of performing arts theatres in Dunedin and requested that Council write a letter of support for the Mayfair theatre as it was difficult to raise funds elsewhere without the letter of support. Mr Patton responded to questions

1131604		Edna Stevenson Ms Stevenson spoke to her submission in support of Te Awa Ōtākou Peninsula Connection project She commented that the section from Ellisons Road to Ōtākou was dangerous for all users and for emergency services and should be completed to ensure safe access. Ms Stevenson said to complete the project would honour the promise to mana whenua and provide safety. Ms Stevenson responded to questions.
Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 3.11 pm and returned to the meeting at 3.45 pm.

1131967		Dave Macpherson Mr Macpherson spoke to his submission on Te Awa Ōtākou Peninsula Connection project. He spoke of the dangers for cyclists and pedestrians and safety issues of children biking or walking to get to the Portobello school and requested that the Council complete the project. Mr Macpherson responded to questions.

1132237		Emily Cooper, Coastal Communities Cycle Connection Ms Cooper spoke to their submission in support of the Dunedin Tracks Network Trust submission and their request for $50,000 to progress new walking and cycling trails in Dunedin. She provided an update on the Coastal Connection trail and requested a letter of support from Council. Ms Cooper responded to questions.

1132458		Lyndon Weggery, Dunedin Area Citizen Association Mr Weggery spoke to the key points in the submission on behalf of the Dunedin Area Citizen Association and noted concern with the proposed 10% rates increase. Mr Weggery responded to questions.

6		LATE SUBMISSIONS ON THE 9 YEAR PLAN 2025-34
		A report from Civic provided a list of the late submissions received and recommended that they be accepted.
		Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Accepts the late submissions. Motion carried (CNL/2025/111)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Jim O’Malley): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 9.00 am, Tuesday 6 May 2025. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 4.26 pm and resumed at 9.03 am on Tuesday 6 May 2025.
1132906		Andrew Simms and Dean McElwee, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board
		Mr Simms and Mr McElwee spoke to the Board’s PowerPoint presentation and submission. They thanked DCC for the new swimming pool, spoke of the importance of the cycleway connection, community resilience and road safety.

Cr Lee Vandervis entered the meeting at 9.14 am.

		Mr Simms and Mr McElwee responded to questions.
1132198		Barry Williams, Strath Taieri Community Board
Crs Marie Laufiso, Christine Garey and Steve Walker left the meeting at 9.13 am.
		Mr Williams spoke to the Strath Taieri Community Board submission and reiterated key points regarding railway infrastructure and an overview of how to utilise this asset, speeding and the grants review of maintaining or increasing funding. He also spoke of community needs being playground upgrade which could include a pump track and upgrading the swimming pool and hall with assistance from the DCC. Mr Williams advised that DCC should rely on local knowledge when works would be carried out in the various board areas. Mr Williams responded to questions.

Crs Marie Laufiso, Christine Garey and Steve Walker returned to the meeting at 9.25 am.

1132547		Brent Caldwell, Dunedin Repertory Society Inc
		Mr Caldwell spoke to the Dunedin Repertory Society Inc submission and to reinstate the performing arts capital expenditure as part of the long term plan. He advised it was now or never for the playhouse. Mr Caldwell responded to questions.

1132543		Rowan Metregeon, Eva Reynolds, Charlie Milne, Arabella Wood and Ted Adams, Children's Theatre Rōpū
		Rowan Metregeon, Eva Reynolds, Charlie Milne, Arabella Wood and Ted Adams spoke to their submission and asked council to support the children’s theatre and provided an overview of the work they do. They spoke of the new skills and the confidence building this does for children. In short theatre was an outlet for children and their families and they were proud builders of this city of literature. They responded to questions.

1132554		Karen Elliot and Rosella Hart, Stage South Charitable Trust
		Ms Elliot and Ms Hart spoke to their submission, reiterated key points in their submission and requested that the funding for a performing arts venue be reinstated to the 9 year plan. They responded to questions.
Cr Houlahan left the meeting at 10.02 am and returned at 10.05 am.
Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 10.06 am.

1132757		Sarah Anderson, Geoff Allen and Paul Johnson, Regent Theatre Trust of Otago
		Ms Anderson, Mr Allen and Mr Johnson spoke to their submission, reiterated key points and clarified the funding of $1.4m needed as there was a mistake in their submission. They responded to questions.

Cr Kevin Gilbert left the meeting at 10.16 am.

1132426		Deb Fraser, Komene Mirror Services (Whakaata Tohu Tohu)
		Ms Fraser spoke to the Komene Mirror Services (Whakaata Tohu Tohu) submission and reiterated key points in their submission.
Cr Kevin Gilbert returned to the meeting at 10.18am.
Ms Fraser responded to questions.
Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 10.30am. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10.27 am and resumed at 10.30 am.

1129786		Matthew Jenks
		Mr Jenks spoke to his submission, reiterated key points in his submission regarding transport options and the carbon zero plan. Mr Jenks responded to questions.

1132069		Kate Wilson (via Zoom)
		Ms Wilson spoke via Zoom, reiterated her submissions key points and responded to questions.

1132094		Kate Wilson, Otago Central Rail Trail Trust (via Zoom)
		Ms Wilson spoke to the Otago Central Rail Trail Trust submission, reiterated key points and responded to questions.

1131914		Colin Brown, Taieri Trails Group
		Mr Brown spoke personally on the 3 waters entity and also spoke to the Taieri Trails Group. He reiterated key points in the submission and responded to questions.

1131522		Jen Rodgers, The Valley Project
		Ms Rodgers spoke to The Valley Project submission, reiterated a key point of the grants review as part of the 9 year plan and advocated for the continuation of the place based fund and the continued increases with this fund for all place based community groups. Ms Rodgers responded to questions.
1131820		Michael Waddell
		Mr Waddell spoke to his submission and why DCC was investing in a landfill when there were other more viable options available, the carbon emissions and the cultural sensitivity. Mr Waddell responded to questions.

1132293		Kirsten Gibson, Jen Rodgers, South Dunedin Community Network
		Ms Gibson spoke to the South Dunedin Community Network submission and place based community groups in Dunedin. She spoke to five key functions of place based community groups being driving transformation through collaboration, achieving long-term sustainable impact, deliver city wide priorities, strategic response to growing community needs and strategic investment for Dunedin’s future. They responded to questions.

1132279		Raewynne Pedofski
		Ms Pedofski spoke to her submission and supported the cycleway connections in Dunedin. Ms Pedofski responded to questions.

1132218		Dr Ian Griffin
		Dr Griffin spoke to his submission and reiterated his support for the completion of the peninsula connection for safety. Dr Griffin responded to questions.
Following a point of order being raised Cr Steve Walker was asked to leave the meeting. Cr Walker left the meeting at 11.50 am. Cr Marie Laufiso left the meeting at 12.02 pm and returned at 12.03 pm.

1132650		Brent Irving and Gerard Hyland, Dunedin Tunnels Trail Trust (DTTT)
		Mr Irving and Mr Hyland spoke to the Dunedin Tunnels Trail Trust submission and reiterated key points. They responded to questions.
Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 12.11 pm and returned to the meeting at 12.14 pm.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 12.20pm. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12.15 pm and resumed at 12.26 pm.

1133013		Robyn Vintiner
		Ms Vintiner spoke to her submission and responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 1.30 pm. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12.37 pm and resumed at 1.30 pm.

Cr Andrew Whiley and Cr Steve Walker returned to the meeting at 1.30 pm.

1132691		Paul and Pat Richardson
		Mr and Mrs Richardson spoke to their submission and reiterated the need for road safety in Mornington following crashes at the intersection of Glen Road and Glenpark Avenue.
Cr Carmen Houlahan entered the meeting at 1.32 pm, Cr Bill Acklin at 1.33 pm and Cr Brent Weatherall at 1.36 pm..
		They provided an overview of the crashes and they responded to questions.

1130290		Mark Wolf
		Mr Wolf spoke to his submission and responded to questions.

1130810		Ms G Laven
		Ms Laven spoke to her submission and reiterated not to charge for entry to museums and galleries.
Cr Jim O’Malley and Cr Kevin Gilbert entered the meeting at 1.52pm.
		Ms Laven responded to questions.

1132093		Elliot Weir
		Elliot Weir spoke to their submission, reiterated key points and responded to questions.

1131965		Neil Johnstone
		Mr Johnstone spoke to his submission, reiterated key points and responded to questions.

1131834		Neil Harraway
		Mr Harraway spoke to his submission, reiterated key points and responded to questions.

1132376		Ben McKenzie, Greater Green Island Community Network
		Mr McKenzie spoke to the Greater Green Island Community Network submission, reiterated key points and responded to questions.

1132660		Sue Novell and Donna Peacock, Seniors Climate Action Network
		Ms Novell spoke to the Seniors Climate Action Network submission, reiterated key points. Ms Novell and Ms Peacock responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 3.15 pm. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 2.53 pm and resumed at 3.15 pm.

1132386		Chris Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (via Zoom)
		Mr Ford, spoke to the Disabled Persons Assembly submission, reiterated key points and responded to questions.

1132410		Irene Scurr
		Ms Scurr spoke to her submission, reiterated key points and responded to questions.

1131323		Karen Trebilcock
		Ms Trebilcock spoke to her submission regarding 231 Stuart Street. She advised that she had a model of how to upgrade the building without any council budget required. Ms Trebilcock responded to questions.

1132565		Skye Duncan
		Ms Duncan spoke to a PowerPoint presentation and submission and responded to questions.

1132511		Lewis Cameron and Danny Healy, Dunedin Indoor Skatepark
		Mr Cameron and Mr Healy spoke to the Dunedin Indoor Skatepark submission and presented a YouTube clip for members to watch. They responded to questions.

1132784		Anna Parker, Joy Davis and Lois Scott-Muir, Ōtepoti Community Builders
		Ms Parker spoke to the Ōtepoti Community Builders submission, reiterated key points. Ms Parker, Ms Davis and Ms Scott-Muir responded to questions.

1132779		George Dawes and Scott Clifford, Dunedin Fringe
		Mr Dawes and Mr Clifford spoke to the Dunedin Fringe submission, reiterated key points and responded to questions.

1132774		Neil Harraway, Wild Dunedin Festival
		Mr Harraway spoke to the Wild Dunedin Festival submission and advised a correction to their submission being the last event had nearly 30,000 not 40,000 in attendance in their submission.
Cr Bill Acklin left the meeting at 4.34 pm.
		Mr Harraway reiterated key points in their submission, asked that analysis of events be made public to help other community led events understand the impact of events in the city and responded to questions.

1133023		Richard Benge, Arts Access Aotearoa (via Zoom)
		Mr Benge spoke to the Arts Access Aotearoa submission, reiterated key points in their submission and responded to questions.

1133053		Robin Bates and Blair Crawford, Edgar Centre/Dunedin Indoor Sports Ventures Trust
		Mr Bates and Mr Crawford spoke to the Edgar Centre/Dunedin Indoor Sports Ventures Trust submission, reiterated key points, and advised a ballpark figure of funding needed of $15m for the upgrade of the venue with an ability to obtain some funding from local businesses and responded to questions.

Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 5.06 pm and returned at 5.07 pm.

1132911		Dougal McGowan, Southern Football
		Mr McGowan spoke to the Southern Football submission, reiterated key points in their submission and responded to questions.

		LATE SUBMISSION
		A submission was received from Ms Bex Twemlow that unfortunately was not included in the late submission report. Ms Twemlow noted that she would like to be heard.

		Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: Accepts the late submission. Motion carried (CNL/2025/112)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 9.00 am on Wednesday 7 May 2025. Motion carried
The meeting adjourned at 5.20 pm and resumed at 9.00 am on Wednesday 7 May 2025. Cr Bill Acklin attended via zoom.

1132680		Paul Weir and Scott Weatherall, Saddle Hill Community Board
		Mr Weir and Mr Weatherall spoke to the submission from the Saddle Hill Community Board and highlighted key points, in particular shared path and Smooth Hill Landfill. They responded to questions.

1132298		Ange McErlane, West Harbour Community Board
		Ms McErlane spoke to the submission from the West Harbour Community Board and in particular commented on the beautification of the main street, including new planting, making it more appealing to visitors, and repairs required to the Council car park which is unsafe due to potholes and poor lighting. The Board also requested that safety be improved on Peninsula Beach Road. Ms McErlane responded.

1132188		Roger Oakley, Otago Rally, Otago Sports Car Club (OSCC)
		Mr Oakley spoke to the submission about events funding in general. They would like the Council to continue events funding and also endorse the Draft Festival and Events Plan. Mr Oakley responded to questions

1132350		Tom Riley, ARANZ (Archives and Records Association of New Zealand)
		Mr Riley spoke to the submission and thanked Council for the improvement to the Dunedin City Council Archives. They would like to have the role of Archivist at Toitu reinstated. The lack of an Archivist places significant barriers to people who wish to use the archives and also the storage and care of archives is being minimised. Mr Riley responded to questions.

1132363		Rosella Hart
		Ms Hart advised that she had started a petition to reinstate the cutting of grass verges. She also spoke regarding the consultation process and felt more time was needed for consultation to take place in the evenings. Ms Hart responded to questions.

1132213		Robert Buxton, Broad Bay Boating Club Cr Garey withdrew from this item. Mr Buxton spoke to the presentation regarding the rebuild of Broad Bay Boating Club. The Club is seeking $62,000 initially and in the 2027/28 year $150,000 included in the 9 year plan for phase 2, which includes changing rooms/kitchen, clubrooms and multi-purpose room. Mr Buxton responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Lucas) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 10:30am. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10.14 am and resumed at 10.30 am

1132127		Tom Brownlie, ingenum (Via Zoom)
		Mr Brownlie spoke in regards to START UP Dunedin, and advised that they were seeking increased funding of $130,000. He commented that START UP Dunedin was a strategic asset. Mr Brownlie responded to questions.

1132205		Brian Dixon (Via Zoom)
		Mr Dixon spoke to his submission on climate change and climate action, and was concerned that the Council had reduced funding for Zero Carbon. Mr Dixon responded to questions.

1132172		Bruce Mahalski, Dunedin Museum of Natural Mystery
		Mr Mahalski spoke regarding Carbon Zero Plan. He would like the city to take action to reduce carbon. Mr Mahalski responded to questions.

1132203		Rei Ishikawa, Karo Data Management
		Mr Ishikawa spoke to his submission and recommended council investment in data and digital infrastructure. Mr Ishikawa responded to questions.

Mayor Jules Radich left the meeting at 11.11 am and Deputy Mayor Cherry Lucas assumed the chair.

1132657		Ms Jordana Whyte, Dunedin Wildlife Hospital
		Cr Steve Walker withdrew from this item. Ms Whyte spoke to her submission seeking additional funding for the Dunedin Wildlife Hospital. She commented on the benefit the hospital had to Dunedin and its importance to the local wildlife. Ms Whyte responded to questions.

1132589		Ted Daniels, Exchange Renaissance Ltd
		Mr Daniels spoke to his submission and suggested that a trust be established to save 231 Stuart Street and finding performers and people who would use it. Mr Daniels responded to questions.

Cr Jim O’Malley left the meeting at 11.28 am.

1132567		Ross Johnston
		Mr Johnston spoke to his submission regarding theatre in Dunedin, and funding for events and what happens in between major events. He advised that Council support small local events to ensure the vibrancy of theatre in Dunedin . Mr Johnston responded to questions.

1132577		Donna Peacock
		Mrs Peacock spoke to her submission. She commented on a number of issues including cycle trails, food security and zero carbon and responded to questions.

Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 11.44 am and returned at 11.52 am.

1132533		David Bennett, Save Dunedin Live Music
		The Mayor returned to the meeting at 11.53 am and resumed the Chair. Mr Bennett spoke to his submission and advised that the Council needs to resource the Ōtepoti Music Action Plan. He advised that strategies do not build theatres and music spaces and additional staff resources need to be supported. If 231 Stuart Street was sold the money would be best used to support theatre into the future. Mr Bennett responded to questions.
Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 12.03 pm.
1132502		Natalie Karaitiana
		Ms Karaitiana spoke to her submission including the Peninsula Connection and requested that it be completed. She would like section to be completed for the safety of users.

1132456		Ingrid Roding and Jonathon Duncan - Dunedin Coaching Board
		Ms Roding and Mr Duncan spoke to the submission from the Dunedin Coaching Board, seeking confirmed multiyear funding towards pool hire costs and other expenses. They advised that the grant was cost neutral but over the last two years the grant has not met the cost of lane hire. They requested that the grant be inflation proofed. Ms Roding and Mr Duncan responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Walker) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 1.30 pm. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12.28 pm and reconvened at 1.30 pm. Cr Marie Laufiso left the meeting at 12.28 pm. Cr Jim O’Malley entered the meeting at 1.30 pm.

1131466		Irene Harris and Jill Connolly, Brockville Community Connect
		Ms Harris and Ms Connolly spoke to the submission and requested a number of improvements for the Brockville area, including angle parking and enhancing the public rest room and park facilities. She advised that they would like a pump track, which they would pay for if Council provided the land. Ms Harris and Ms Connolly responded to questions.

1132485		Tim Ponting
		Mr Ponting spoke to the Peninsula Connection and how important it was to the people living on the Otago Peninsula and would like to see it completed.
Cr Marie Laufiso entered the meeting at 1.42 pm.

1132441		Tim Ponting, Centre Of Digital Excellence (CODE)
		Mr Ponting spoke on behalf of the submission from CODE advising they are losing some funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and are now seeking a modest investment on an annual basis to continue with the work of CODE. Mr Ponting responded to questions.

1132475		Frances Anderson, Harington Point Community Society Inc
		Supports the completion of the Peninsula Connection and funding should be in the early years of the 9YP and also spoke on the Te Raoune Beach restoration.

1132902		Mike Collins, Business South
		Mr Collins spoke on the submission from Business South and highlighted key points from the submission including funding for infrastructure and development to attract new businesses to the City. Mr Collins responded to questions.

1132861		Giverny Forbes, New Zealand Sea Lion Trust
		Ms Forbes spoke on behalf of the New Zealand Sea Lion Trust submission. The Trust urged the Council to lead the way internationally on how to successfully share space with wildlife. She advised that roading is one of the most pressing challenges for sea lions. She asked that the Council provide resources for supporting temporary and long term measures for supporting sea lions. Ms Giverny responded to questions.

1133033		Liam Harrison
		Mr Harrison advised he is the owner of Pedals Dunedin, which provides support for businesses in the central city helping them connect with supplies etc. He advised that it was a disservice to the community to renege on commitments to build cycling and walking infrastructure between central Dunedin and Mosgiel.

1133377		Gagan Gurung, Health New Zealand
		Mr Gurung spoke to the submission on behalf of submission for Health New Zealand, including smoke free policy, homelessness, transport infrastructure and climate change. Mr Gurung responded to questions.

1133411		Jerad Haldan, THE OPERA (via Zoom)

		Mr Haldan advised he was a co-owner of the Monarch and the Otago Peninsula Eco Restoration Alliance (OPERA) who do charity and conservation work in the Otago Peninsula. He spoke to the submission and in particular commented on the completion of the Peninsula connection and the importance of its completion. He was concerned that it was proposed to charge for use of the wharf, as mostly small businesses use it. He was happy to discuss this matter. Mr Halden responded to questions.
Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 3.15 pm Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 3.05 pm and resumed at 3.15 pm.

1132867		Karen Anderson (via Zoom)
		Ms Anderson advised that she did not feel safe and terminated her presentation.
Crs Andrew Whiley and Kevin Gilbert entered the meeting at 3.21 pm.
1132754		Jett Groshinski, Otago University Student's Association
		Mr Groshinski spoke to the submission from the Otago University Student’s Association and commented on the possibility of a rental warrant of fitness, and infrastructure and the importance of Council prioritising core infrastructure renewal and climate adaptation. Mr Groshinski responded to questions.

1132916		Jonathan Cweorth, Dunedin Public Art Gallery Society
		Mr Cweorth spoke to the submission on behalf of the Dunedin Public Art Gallery Society. He advised it has 230 and is concerned about the proposal to charge and entry fee for overseas visitors. They believe that this will drop the number of visitors and also the viability of the gallery and the finance gained will not outweigh the damage to the gallery’s visitor numbers. Mr Cweorth responded to questions.
1133015		Rachel Butler, Startup Dunedin
		Ms Butler spoke to the submission from Startup Dunedin and advised that StartUp Dunedin has not had a funding adjustment since 2019. The organisation is now at capacity and people are unable to get appointments for up to four weeks. They do not have the staff resources to run workshops etc. Ms Butler responded to questions.

1132764		Fraser Stephens, Spokes Dunedin
		Mr Stephens spoke to the submission on behalf of Spokes Dunedin, they advised that most cities have a car dependency and the cost spent on the roads is significant. He requested that the council give more consideration to provide options for active transport, and public transport. Mr Fraser responded to questions.

1132732		Sally Dicey, Chris Higgs and Steve Catty
		Ms Dicey, Mr Higgs and Mr Catty requested that the Council commit to the development of the Tomahawk primary school site as a recreation area. The requested that the Council include $800,000 in the 9 year plan for this work.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 4.22 pm Due to no further submitters arriving at the meeting. Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Christine Garey) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 9:00 am on Thursday 8 May 2025. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 4.32 pm and resumed at 9:00 am on Thursday 8 May 2025.

1131089		Paul Pope, Otago Peninsula Community Board
		Mr Pope provided a video presentation on behalf of the Otago Peninsula Community Board asking that the Council support funding in the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034 for completion of the remaining un-finished Ōtakou/Harington Point section of the Peninsula Connection. Mr Pope also spoke in support of the funding sought for the old school site at Tomahawk being developed into a reserve area and provision of new public toilets at the Macandrew Bay beach reserve area. Mr Pope responded to questions.

1127978		Hoani Langsbury, Royal Albatross Centre (via Zoom link) Mr Langsbury provided a video presentation of the current road safety concerns on the un-finished Ōtākou/Harington Point section of the road and the large number of vehicle movements on the section. Mr Langsbury spoke on behalf of ecotourism operators on the Otago Peninsula and the importance of the completion of this section of the Te Awa Ōtākou Peninsula Connection. Mr Langsbury responded to questions.

1132338		Lynne Newell, Surrey Street Flood Action Group Mrs Newell spoke to her submission on the need for immediate upgrades to the storm water and waste water infrastructure for flood resilience for South Dunedin. Ms Newell responded to questions.
1134508		Bex Twemlow
		Ms Twemlow spoke to her submission in support of retention of 231 Stuart Street as an strategic asset, support of an entry free for international visitors to Toitū and the Dunedin Public Art Gallery (DPAG) and for revenue from the entry fees to be “ring fenced” to support the galleries operations. Ms Twemlow spoke against the planned Smooth Hill land fill and planned future rate rises. Ms Twemlow responded to questions.
1132899		Allan Dippie, Willowridge Developments Limited
		Mr Dippie spoke in support of the Smooth Hill landfill and considered that the city should be responsible for its own waste management and considered it a vital infrastructure. Mr Dippie also spoke to the importance of Council finding the right level of development contributions to encourage future developments in the city. Mr Dippie responded to questions.

1133830		Harry Lagocki
		Mr Lagocki spoke to his submission seeking that land with elite soils be utilised for food production over residential development. Mr Lagocki responded to questions.

1132529		Murray Grimwood
		Mr Grimwood tabled a print copy of his presentation to the meeting on a call to disband the Economic Development Unit and spoke to his submission. Mr Grimwood responded to questions.
Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting . Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10:24 am and resumed at 10:30 am.
1132795		Alasdair Morrison and Andy Barratt, Waikouaiti Coast Community Board Mr Morrison spoke to the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board’s submission which included request for an upgrade and future resilience for the Waikouaiti water supply, a public toilet at the Truby King Reserve and non-financial support from Council for the upgrade of the main street through Waikouaiti.
Cr Carmen Houlahan returned to the meeting at 10:36 am.
		Mr Morrison requested that Council consider providing the Community Board with funding of $10,000 for the trial of a community maintenance person managed through the Community Board to address local maintenance work. Mr Morrison responded to questions.
1132387		Andy Barratt and Judy Martin, One Coast, Waikouaiti Mr Barratt spoke to the submission and the work of One Coast Recycling Centre in providing a waste recovery, waste minimisation, and re-use of items received at the Waikouaiti transfer station. The submission sought an annual grant of $30,000 to upgrade the facilities to increase the activities at the site in support the DCC Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (MMMP). Mr Barratt and Mrs Martin responded to questions.
Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting at 10:50 am.
1132887		Andrew Simms Mr Simms spoke to his individual submission in opposition to the Smooth Hill landfill. He provided a presentation on the Council cost, key risks, resource consent conditions, and the emissions impacts, as he considered them. Mr Simms responded to questions.
1132880		Cameron Burrow - Dunedin Rugby Football Club and the St Clair Surf Lifesaving Club Mr Burrow spoke to the submission and sought collaboration with Council for future planning for management of the coastal space, for community and club facilities. Mr Burrow responded to questions.
1132729		Peter Petchey, Dunedin Gasworks Museum Trust Mr Petchey spoke to the submission and responded to questions.

Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 11:24 am and returned at 11:26 am.
1132531		Michael Eathorne-Gould and Marion Maxwell, Dunedin Gymnastic Academy Mrs Maxwell and Mr Eathorne-Gould spoke to the Dunedin Gymnastic Academy submission, seeking funding of $330,000 over three years to assist with development of a site to provide opportunities for gym sports to the children of Dunedin. Mr Michael Eathorne-Gould and Mrs Maxwell responded to questions.
1132882		Owen Booth, Sport Otago
		Mr Booth spoke to the submission seeking Council’s ongoing funding of programmes such as Learn to Swim to support physical activity by Dunedin residents. He highlighted the importance of partnership with Sport Otago. Mr Booth also spoke in support of repairs to the Edgar Centre and advocated for long term investment and maintenance of sporting facilities in Dunedin. Mr Booth responded to questions .

1132800		Jo Millar, Grey Power Otago Inc Mrs Millar spoke to the submission, which included the provision of social housing, and the reduction of Council staffing. Mrs Millar responded to questions.
Crs Brent Weatherall and Sophie Barker left the meeting at 11:52 am and returned at 11:56 am.

1132752		Phil Dowsett, and Moira Styles, Otago Settlers Association Mr Dowsett and Mrs Styles spoke to the submission opposing the introduction of an entry free for international visitors to Toitū and the Dunedin Public Art Gallery (DPAG) and considered that an entry fee would result in significant reduction in visitations. Mr Dowsett and Mrs Styles responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Marie Laufiso) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for five minutes Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12:05pm and resumed at 12:12pm.
1133018		Des McIntosh
		Mr McIntosh spoke to his submission and asked that Council owned unused buildings be developed or sold. He sought improvements to the locations of recycling bins at the Bus Hub, the surface condition of pavers in the Octagon and remedies for the impact of southerly weather conditions on the members of the public waiting at bus shelters.

1132684		Aaron Hawkins, Zero Carbon Ōtepoti Dunedin Mr Hawkins spoke in support of the Zero Carbon Ōtepoti Dunedin submission for support for climate action in the city. Mr Hawkins referenced the Zero Carbon Plan and questioned the exclusion of investment into zero carbon in the 9YP budget. Mr Hawkins sought for Council to continue with clear climate leadership. Mr Hawkins responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting until 1:30 pm. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12:29 pm and resumed at 1:30 pm.
Cr Bill Acklin attended the meeting via audio visual link. Cr Mandy Mayhem returned to the meeting at 1:30 pm.

1132873		Sarah Ramsay, South Coast Neighbourhood Society Ms Ramsay spoke to the submission and outlined concerns over the development of the Smooth Hill landfill and requested that Council defer the decision until alternative options had been considered, including due diligence and independent review of other possible sites. Ms Ramsay responded to questions.

1132875		Dr Kimberly Morgan, Dunedin Summer Shakespeare (and) Hic Sunt Dracones Productions Dr Morgan spoke to the submission and provided a presentation on Performing Arts in Ōtepoti Dunedin. She spoke to the importance of theatre as part of democracy, the economic benefit and social well-being to the city through a purpose built theatre in Dunedin. She also sought on-going support to existing theatres. Dr Morgan responded to questions.

1132430		Robert Bain and Jason Bezett - Green Island Rugby Football Club Mr Bain and Mr Bezett spoke to the submission, seeking funding for replacement lighting at two of the club’s sports grounds as this was considered a health and safety issue by the club over the Winter season, due to the lack of safe lighting. Messrs Bain and Bezett responded to questions.
1131948		Bernadette Newlands
		Mrs Newlands spoke in support of the completion of the Ōtākou/Harington Point section of the Te Awa Otakou Peninsula Connection. Mrs Newlands responded to questions.
1132843		Mary O'Brien, CCS Disability Action
		Ms O’Brien spoke on behalf of the CCS Disability Action Group submission and responded to questions.

1132803		Taylor Davies-Colley, Town Belt Kaitiaki Mr Davies-Colley spoke to the submission and sought an increase in annual funding (from $32,000 to $50,000) in support of environmental work in the Town Belt and development of youth leadership skills. Mr Davies-Colley responded to questions

		LATE SUBMISSION
		Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Accepts the late submission from Mr John Gallaher seeking Council support for the return of the Nuggets and Hoiho teams to local ownership. Motion carried (CNL/2025/113)
Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 2:32 pm and resumed at 2:40 pm.

1132593		Rachel Elder, Dunedin Tracks Network Trust Mrs Elder and Mr Coffey spoke to an audio visual presentation in support of the Dunedin Tracks Network Trust submission and circulated a vision document for the Otago’s Trail Network. The Trust sought funding support from the 9YP of $450,000 for pre-planning, consent and business case development to assist the Trust in seeking future funding from other organisations to compete the trails work . Mr Coffey and Mrs Elder responded to questions.

1132794		Kyla Glover and Malek Tamimi, Dunedin Youth Council Miss Glover and Miss Tamimi spoke to a submission by the Dunedin Youth Council and outlined areas the Youth Council sought support, including: creation and maintenance of a youth hub; work experience opportunities for youth at DCC run facilities; and youth grants for youth lead events. Miss Glover and Miss Tamimi responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 15 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 3.10 pm and reconvened at 3.25 pm.
1132698		Kris Smith, Port Chalmers Foundry Society (Incorporated) (via Zoom)
		Ms Smith provided an update from the Port Chalmers Foundry Society on the project work to date. Ms Smith responded to questions.

1130217		Hendrik Koch, Dunedin Environment Centre Trust (Shetland Street Community Gardens & Conservation Nursery
		Mr Koch spoke to the Trust’s submission and sought ongoing funding from the 9YP (inflation adjusted) for further development of the garden and nursery. Mr Koch responded to questions.

1132848		Philippa Harris and Megan Bartlett - Dunedin Symphony Orchestra (DSO) Ms Harris and Ms Bartlett spoke to the DSO submission, including their support of the Dunedin Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan. They also spoke on the negative impact of the decreased Council funding to the DSO and sought consideration of the funding request, as detailed in the submission. Ms Harris and Ms Bartlett responded to questions.

1132829		Robert Barlin Mr Barlin spoke to his submission and expressed his concern for rates rises, rateable values and budgets. He offered suggestions for savings by Council with a focus on a 30 Year Plan rather than a 10 Year Plan. Mr Barlin responded to questions.
Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 3:58 pm and returned at 4:01 pm.

1131494		Neville Peat
		Mr Peat spoke to his submission in support of completion of the Ōtakou/Harington Point section of the peninsula connection. Mr Peat Responded to questions.

1132366		John Moyle, Helen Brownlie and Darren Bezett - Green Island Combined Sports Bodies Incorporated
		Mr Moyle spoke on the background of the development of the Sunnyvale Sports Centre since its build in the 1970s and to the funding sought in the submission to partnership with Council to continue development of the sports centre for the good of the greater Green Island area. Mr Moyle, Mrs Brownlie and Mr Bezett responded to questions.
1132472		Steve Smith, AB Lime Limited Mr Smith spoke to the submission by AB Lime Ltd and requested that Council give further consideration to waste management options other than the Smooth Hill landfill. Mr Smith responded to questions.

The meeting closed at 4:40 pm.

..............................................

MAYOR

Council

26 May 2025

Reports

Local Water Done Well - Decision on Water Services Delivery Model

Department: Legal Services, Finance and 3 Waters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to provide information so that Council can decide on its water services delivery model (WSDM) under the Government’s Local Water Done Well (LWDW) reform programme.

2 Council is required to adopt a WSDM to complete its Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP). The WSDP is legally required to be submitted to the Secretary for Local Government by 3 September 2025.

3 On 26 February 2025, Council decided in principle on a preferred and alternative option for its WSDM:

a) Preferred option - In-House delivery of three waters services (the In-House Option); and

b) Alternative option- An asset owning council-controlled organisation for three waters with Council as the sole shareholder (the CCO Option).

4 Public consultation on the WSDM options ran in parallel with consultation on Council’s draft 9 year plan 2025-34 (9YP) from 31 March 2025 to 30 April 2025. Combined hearings were held on both the 9YP and WSDM in the week commencing 5 May 2025.

5 There were 467 submissions that selected a WSDM. The majority of submitters favoured the In-House Option (67%) as compared to the CCO Option (33%).

6 Council’s decision on the WSDM is required by law and allows staff to progress both the WSDP as well as make any necessary changes to the draft 9YP depending on Council’s decision. The 9YP is currently drafted based on Council’s preferred option, in-house delivery.

7 To assist Council’s decision on the WSDM, this report:

a) reiterates the legal requirements and other key matters required for Council decision making;

b) summarises the LWDW consultation process and submissions received;

c) discusses key feedback received through the LWDW consultation process; and

d) presents updates to the Council Report dated 26 February 2025 (February Report).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Decides on its water services delivery model, being either:

i) In-House delivery of three waters services (the In-House Option); or

ii) An asset owning council-controlled organisation for three waters with Council as the sole shareholder (the CCO Option).

b) Notes that Council’s decision on the water services delivery model will be reflected in Council’s 9 year plan 2025-34.

BACKGROUND

Water Services Delivery Plan

8 Council is required to prepare a WSDP under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 (Preliminary Act).

9 The WSDP must be submitted to the Secretary for Local Government by 3 September 2025.

10 The WSDP requires information on the WSDM including:

a) the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services;

b) a summary of consultation undertaken as part of developing the WSDM; and

c) an implementation plan for delivering the WSDM.

11 A WSDP can be amended within a specified timeframe if the proposed amendments are significant and necessary due to exceptional circumstances.

12 Council is required by law to give effect to the proposals or undertakings specified in the WSDP.

Decision-Making

13 As presented to Council in earlier reports (including the February Report refer item 3 of supplementary agenda 26 February 2025), the Preliminary Act prescribes the process that Council must use for decision-making on the WSDM.

14 Council is not required to comply with the corresponding requirement in the Local Government Act 2002 where an alternative process under the Preliminary Act applies.

15 The Preliminary Act specifies that, in the course of the decision-making process on the WSDM, the Council:

a) must identify both of the following two options for delivering water services:

(i) remaining with the existing approach for delivering water services; and

(ii) establishing, joining or amending (as the case may be) a water services council-controlled organisation (WSCCO) or a joint local government arrangement; but

b) may also identify additional options for delivering water services; and

c) must assess the advantages and disadvantages of all options identified.

16 Council accordingly adopted a shortlist of options at the Council meeting dated 25 November 2024 (refer item 21 on the 25 November 2024 agenda).

17 In the February Report staff provided further analysis on the shortlisted options.

18 At the Council’s meeting of 26 February 2025, Council resolved as follows:

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Decides to consult on the following two options under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024:

i) In-House delivery of 3 Waters (the In-House Option); and

ii) An asset owning CCO for 3 Waters, with Council as the sole shareholder (the CCO Option).

b) Determines that its Preferred Option for consultation was the In-House Option.

c) Notes that there would be a report to Council on 18 March 2024 asking Council to consider the water options consultation document.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/074)

February Report

19 The February Report included:

· background information on the LWDW reform programme;

· legislative requirements and an overview of draft legislation;

· the timeline and process for LWDW; and

· detailed financial and non-financial analysis on the shortlisted options for the WSDM.

20 Full details of the February Report have not been repeated in this report. However, some key considerations have been reiterated where relevant to this decision.

Consultation

21 As part of its decision-making on the WSDM, Council is required to consult with the community on the two options and identify its proposal (preferred option).

22 The Preliminary Act set out information that must be included in the consultation document. A consultation document compliant with the legislation was considered and approved at the Council meeting dated 26 March 2025.

23 Consultation on the WSDM ran in parallel with the 9YP consultation and opened at 9am on 31 March 2025 and closed at 12 noon on 30 April 2025. Hearings were held in the week commencing 5 May 2025.

24 Staff have engaged with mana whenua to ensure their knowledge and perspective is understood and considered. At the 25 March 2025 Te Pae Māori hui, an overview of LWDW was provided together with an explanation of the WSDM models being consulted on. At a separate hui In May 2025, staff provided further detail regarding the preferred option and the alternate, CCO, option. Staff have received a letter dated 19 May 2025 (Attachment A) from Kāti Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki. Staff will provide an update to Councillors at the meeting if there is any further feedback.

DISCUSSION

25 A decision on the WSDM is legally required and allows staff to both progress the WSDP and make any necessary changes to the draft 9YP resulting from Council’s decision.

26 To assist Council, staff set out the following:

Community Consultation Summary

27 Staff have prepared a Summary of Submissions on LWDW Water Services Delivery Model Consultation (Memorandum) which is Attachment B.

28 In summary:

a) 799 submissions were received from the community through (i) the separate written submission form for LWDW; and (ii) the online submission form which covered both the 9YP and LWDW.

b) Of these submissions, 467 submissions selected a WSDM. Submissions that did not select a WSDM (332) have not been included in the results summary below. Six comments on LWDW made by submitters that did not select a WSDM have been noted by staff in the Memorandum.

c) 313 submissions (67% of the total number of submissions received selecting a WSDM) supported Council’s preferred WSDM option (the In-House Option).

d) 154 submissions (33% of the total number of submissions received selecting a WSDM) supported the alternative WSDM option presented (the CCO Option).

Key Consultation Feedback

29 Feedback from submissions covered a wide range of topics relating to LWDW. Submission comments by topics are outlined below:

Topics	Number of Comments	Percentage (%)
Legislation and Governance	75	14%
Financial	59	13%
Infrastructure and Services	30	6%
General	152	31%
No specific LWDW comments	173	37%
TOTAL	467*	100%

* Total number of comments where submitters indicated a preferred water service delivery model

30 Of the 313 submitters choosing the In-House Option, key reasons (taken from the comments and/or attachments) were as follows:

Key Reasons for In-House Option

Number of Comments

Legislation and Governance

Local Control

Public accountability

Concerns over future privatisation

Greater transparency

Election cycles allow change in governance

Financial

Less debt, lower future water charges, less overhead costs (i.e. no structure costs such as governance and company administration), previous history of underperformance of DCC subsidiaries.

General

More efficiency with less bureaucracy and reduction of unnecessary duplication.

Uncertainty with CCO model

31 Of the 154 submitters choosing the CCO Option, key reasons (taken from the comments and/or attachments) were as follows:

Key Reasons for CCO Option

Number of Comments

Legislation and Governance

Better decision making

Management by non-political body

Professional management

Expertise

Ensure long-term strategic planning

Experience

Historical record of deferral of infrastructure renewals

Support creation of Otago-Southland entity

Two options is limited

Financial

Use of debt allowing for acceleration of capital programme, Reduced debt in DCC entity, expectation of longer-term financial sustainability, financially more efficient and focused.

General

Dedicated organisation

Better outcomes for freshwater ecology

32 Eight comments considered that a CCO model would make it more likely that mana whenua are involved in all water decisions while five comments considered that mana whenua involvement would be better achieved in an in-house model. 

33 Seven comments favoured an in-house water services model for better alignment with council priorities and integration, while one submission argued that a CCO model could also work effectively, citing examples like NZTA and Transpower.

34 Opinions on council track record of performance as a basis for selection of the water services delivery model were divided, with three comments favouring a CCO model and four preferring an in-house model.

35 There were no specific submissions on LWDW received from Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou or Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki.

36 Four Community Boards were supportive of the In-House Option citing cost effectiveness for ratepayers, local control, use of in-house expertise and that they were impressed with the knowledge and professionalism of the 3 Waters team during the 2021 lead-in-water issue. Other Community Boards did not indicate a preferred WSDM or make any comments regarding LWDW.

Staff Comment on Community Feedback

37 Reasons for the selection the In-House Option were mixed but the majority related to local control and financial reasons. The majority of comments received from those favouring the CCO Option related to legislation and governance including management by a non-political body.

38 It is possible that some submitters still link water reform in general with the now repealed water services entities under earlier reforms.

39 While outside the WSDM option choice, several comments supported the creation of an Otago-Southland water entity.

Financial Update

40 Since the February Report, there have been some changes to the Council’s draft 9YP operating and capital budgets. These changes are outlined in the 9YP overview and capital expenditure update reports. Additionally, Council may consider further changes to the 3 Waters budget.

41 The current proposed changes include further capital expenditure due to the current work programme. Some projects require budget to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26, along with other revisions throughout the 9 year period. Additionally, some LWDW staffing costs have been brought forward into 2025/26 to facilitate ringfencing and regulatory compliance. All changes made since the February Report will be required irrespective of the model option decided by Council.

Progress of Legislation

42 The statutory requirements and process for deciding on a WSDM is under the Preliminary Act, which was passed into law on 2 September 2024.

43 The Local Government (Water Services) Bill 2024 (December Bill) is still progressing through the Parliamentary process. The December Bill is the third piece of legislation in the Government’s three-stage process for implementing LWDW. The December Bill sets out the enduring settings for the new water services system including economic regulation.

44 There is still some uncertainty as to the application of the ‘change proposal’ process currently drafted in the December Bill. This was discussed in more detail in the February Report. It is hoped that there will be further clarity on consultation requirements when triggering a change proposal which could possibly include the act of establishing a CCO or entering a shared services arrangement with another council.

45 Council made both a written and oral submission on these concerns and other key matters during the submission process earlier in the year. Staff will update Councillors once the December Bill has been progressed further.

46 The Select Committee is not due to Report on the December Bill until 17 June 2025. There has been no indication from the Select Committee on any amendment to the December Bill.

Shared Services

47 Staff are still collaborating with Christchurch City Council to investigate the potential for shared services. Staff intend updating Council in a separate report in June 2025.

48 Shared services with another council are possible under either option but, depending on any Parliamentary amendments to the December Bill, Council may be required undertake consultation before entering a shared service arrangement with any other council.

Letter from Minister of Local Government

49 On 21 May 2025, Council received a letter from the Minister of Local Government (attached as Attachment C).

50 The letter:

a) underlines the importance of financial sustainability and the new economic regulation regime under LWDW; and

b) sets out the Minister’s expectations.

51 Given that the letter has arrived on the date of this Council agenda being released, staff have not had time to fully assess the implications from this letter. However:

a) Staff have liaised closely with the DIA throughout the reform process and has been briefed throughout on the Minister’s expectations.

b) Based on an initial review, staff advice on options has considered what has now been received formally.

c) Staff will provide a verbal update on 26 May 2025 if there are any further matters that need to be considered in light of the Minister’s letter.

OPTIONS

52 The Preliminary Act requires Council to choose its future WSDM.

53 There are a range of advantages and disadvantages for both the In-House Option and the CCO Option. In essence, the In-House Option provides Council with direct control over water services, ensuring residents can participate in decision making through usual local body processes, and there is alignment with broader Council strategies and Council functions. However, the CCO has access to higher borrowing and operates under different financial arrangements.

54 The impact on rates and debt for both the In-House Option and the CCO Option are included in the February Report.

55 The impact on emissions and zero carbon is likely to be similar whether the Preferred Option is the In-House Option or the CCO Option. Should Council decide on the CCO Option, then the Statement of Expectations for the CCO could include provisions regarding emissions and zero carbon.

Option One – In-House delivery of Three Waters (the In-House Option)

Advantages

· Aligns with the majority of public submissions on the WSDM (67%).

· Retains local control and accountability.

· Strong integration with other Council functions (e.g., flood management and urban planning) which supports operational efficiencies and aligns with Council’s broader strategies and city-wide priorities (subject to regulation).

· Financial modelling indicates the Council Group would take on less debt under the In-House Option (as compared to the CCO Option).

· Avoids the costs of establishing a CCO and minimises transition costs (noting however that the In-House Option will have significant costs associated with setting Council up so that it can comply with the new regulatory regime).

· Council’s draft 9YP retains water while remaining within Council’s debt-to-revenue limit of 250% and the LGFA net debt limit of 280%.

· Builds on Council’s successful delivery of water services.

· This option would allow Council time to test how the In-House Option works under the new regulatory regime, and to see the effects of any shared services arrangements (such as those currently being investigated with Christchurch City Council).

· This option does not prevent Council from reconsidering its WSDM later, such as in 2027 as part of the next Long Term Plan process and developing a Water Services Strategy.

Disadvantages

· Financial modelling indicates this option as requiring approximately $114 million more in water charges than the CCO option over 10 years to 2034.

· Council does not have access to the 500% debt to revenue ratio that is available under the CCO Option.

· The In-House Option could constrain Council’s ability to spend in areas other than water and/or to deal with large-scale infrastructure investments not already budgeted for in the draft 9YP.

· Council will need to establish new mechanisms for ringfencing water revenue and costs.

· The Commerce Commission will have wide powers, with the ability to consider matters relating directly and indirectly to water services.

· Does not ringfence legal liability to within the CCO.

· Arguably, less commercial and/or agile due to the legislative framework for councils.

· May be less attractive to specialist staff, although this may be mitigated through shared services arrangements.

· Uncertainty as to future direction through Central government and regulation.

Option Two – An asset owning CCO for Three Waters, with Council as the sole shareholder (the CCO Option)

Advantages

· Financial modelling indicates this option requires $114 million less in water charges than the In-House Option over 10 years to 2034.

· LGFA will allow a debt to revenue ratio of 500% (compared to 280% for Council under the In-House Option).

· Does not constrain Council’s ability to spend in areas other than water.

· The Council would not be subject to the new regulatory regime, and the associated compliance costs associated with that regime.

· Legal liability would be ringfenced to within the CCO (at least to some extent).

· The CCO must give effect to statement of expectations (if consistent with CCO’s purpose and statutory objectives).

· A director of a CCO must be appointed based on their competency to perform the role, and the directors of a CCO must collectively have an appropriate mix of skills, knowledge, and experience in relation to providing water services.

· Accountability to the Council as shareholder via regular reporting and annual reporting.

· Arguably, a CCO may be more commercial and/or agile due to it not operating under the same legislative framework as councils.

Disadvantages

· The CCO Option was not favoured by the majority of submissions.

· Financial modelling indicates the Council Group would take on approximately $157 million more debt under the CCO Option (as compared to the In-House Option), with the associated risk and cost of servicing higher debt.

· Risks reduced co-ordination with Council functions if not adequately managed.

· Independent governance introduces risk of misalignment with Council priorities (unless effectively managed through governance arrangements and key accountability documents).

· Potential for reduced community input.

· Accountability to consumers for service delivery potentially blurred.

· Establishment and transition costs reduce immediate value.

· If Council found that the CCO Option was problematic, it would be difficult to unwind the arrangements.

NEXT STEPS

56 Despite the 9YP and LWDW consultation processes being two separate processes, Audit New Zealand has advised that the 9YP (to be adopted by the end of June 2025) and WSDP must align. Therefore, if required following a decision by Council on the WSDM, the draft 9YP will be updated prior to adoption by 30 June 2025.

57 Staff will continue work on the WSDP and will incorporate the WSDM into the WSDP. A workshop on the draft WSDP is scheduled for 4 June 2025. Staff intend providing Council with a draft WSDP for feedback on or around 12 August 2025, which will provide time to incorporate Council’s feedback prior to the WSDP being submitted to the Secretary for Local Government by 3 September 2025.

Signatories

Author:

Nadia McKenzie - In-House Legal Counsel

Karilyn Canton - Chief In-House Legal Counsel

Hayden McAuliffe - Financial Services Manager

Jared Oliver - Planning Manager

Authoriser:

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Kāti Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki Water Delivery Model Feedback	84
⇩b	Summary of submissions on Local Water Done Well Water Services Delivery Model Consultation	85
⇩c	Letter from Minister of Local Government	97

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and promotes the social, economic environmental and 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	✔	☐	☐

This report has been prepared with reference to the Dunedin strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Under both options Council is committed to working closely with mana whenua to shape the future of water services in Ōtepoti Dunedin. Council is consulting on the models directly with iwi .

Sustainability

Financial sustainability of local government water services is a key objective of the Government’s ‘Local Water Done Well’ policy. Regardless of which WSDM is chosen, Council must ensure delivery of water services will be financially sustainable by 30 June 2028.

Zero carbon

The impact on emissions and zero carbon is likely to be similar whether the WSDM is the In-House Option or the CCO Option. Should Council decide on the CCO Option, then the Statement of Expectations for the CCO could include provisions regarding emissions and zero carbon.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are significant implications for the LTP, and associated documents. Audit New Zealand expects Council’s 9YP to reflect the WSDM.

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are discussed in depth in the February Report.

Significance

The matters discussed in this report are considered high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The public have been consulted with on the water services delivery models in accordance with legislation.

Engagement – external

There is engagement with other territorial authorities and mana whenua as discussed in the report.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Legal, Finance, 3 Waters, and the Executive Leadership Team have contributed to this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Council must complete a WSDP by September 2025. A decision on the Council’s WSDM is a critical decision in preparing the WSDP.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards have had an opportunity to participate during the consultation process.

Council

26 May 2025

Community Engagement Feedback Summary - 9 year plan 2025-2034

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report summarises the community engagement process and feedback received on the Dunedin City Council (DCC)’s draft 9 year plan 2025-34 (the 9 year plan).

2 Formal consultation on the draft 9 year plan occurred between 31 March and 30 April 2025. 799 submissions were received.

3 Feedback on specific consultation items has been covered in separate reports, including removal of 231 Stuart Street from the Significant Asset Register, Entry fees for cultural institutions and Local Water Done Well.

4 There were several comments from individuals, groups and community boards relating to grants, funding requests and amenity requests. These are also covered in separate reports.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the feedback received from the community through the 9 year plan community engagement process.

BACKGROUND

Decision to proceed with a 9 year plan

5 In February 2024, Council decided to complete an Annual Plan for the 2024/25 year, and then complete a 9 Year Plan covering the 2025-34 years. This was due to the Water Services Acts Repeal Act 2024, that provided transitional options for local authorities to consider in the preparation of their long term plans.

“Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Approves the preparation of an Annual Plan 2024/25 for community consultation, followed by a 9 year plan 2025-34.

b) Extends the life of the current Development Contributions Policy to 30 June 2025.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/018)”

Community engagement activities and events

6 In December 2024, Council noted the feedback received from community through early engagement from 9 to 23 October 2024.

7 Key engagement methods used during the 31 March to 30 April 2025 engagement period included:

· Content on the DCC website, including an online submission form.

· Paper submission forms and resource packs provided for engagement events and at DCC facilities.

· A double-spread special 9 year plan edition of the DCC’s newsletter “FYI”

· Promotion through the DCC’s social media channels

· Media releases and media appearances by the Mayor and DCC staff

· Advertising

· In-person engagement opportunities with Councillors and DCC staff during drop-in sessions and scheduled stakeholder events

· Internal communications to DCC staff

· The opportunity for members of the public to speak to Councillors at the 9 year plan hearings between 5 May and 8 May 2025.

8 Online engagement was encouraged as part of the communication and engagement plan. During the engagement period, the dedicated 9 year plan page on the DCC website received 17,997 visits, the consultation document was downloaded 707 times, and the supporting documents, primarily financial information and draft DCC strategies and policies, were downloaded 413 times.

9 In addition to media releases issued by the DCC, Mayor Jules Radich was interviewed by Otago Access Radio (OAR) and this interview was replayed on the OAR breakfast programme.

10 The DCC used its social media channels, Facebook and Instagram, to promote the consultation throughout the community engagement period. The General Manager 3 Waters and Transition appeared on an OAR podcast to promote the consultation.

11 The consultation was also advertised through print and online media; radio; posters and flyers; and library screen broadcasts.

12 There were a total of 13 drop-in sessions held during the consultation period: nine at the Civic Centre/ Library; two at the Farmer’s Market; and two at the Golden Centre.

13 In-person engagement also included:

· Councillors meeting with stakeholder networks, South Dunedin and Older Persons, and the Dunedin Area Citizens Associations Incorporated

· Attendance at events scheduled by Business South and Community Builders

· A staff presentation to the Dunedin Youth Council.

· The Valley Project and Start Up Dunedin hosted 9 year plan events which Councillors attended.

DISCUSSION

Demographic make-up of submitters

14 For the second time, demographic data were collected from submitters, to enable a demographic analysis of people submitting on the 9 year plan.

15 160 submitters specified an organisation, although it is not always clear if they are submitting on behalf of this organisation or not.

16 Table 1: Age group of submitters

Age group*	Number of submissions	Percent of submissions	Percent of Dunedin’s population (Census 2023)
Under 15	2	0%	15%
15-19	10	1%	10%
20-29	43	5%	17%
30-39	95	12%	12%
40-49	143	18%	11%
50-59	133	17%	12%
60-69	118	15%	11%
70 years and over	120	15%	12%
Not specified	135	17%	N/A
Total	799	100%	100%

*Includes submissions from organisations

17 Table 2: Ethnic group of submitters

Ethnic group*	Number of submissions	Percent of submissions	Percent of Dunedin’s population
Asian	18	2%	9%
European total	524	66%	85%
Including: New Zealand European	475	60%	N/A
European	49	6%	N/A
Māori	43	5%	11%
Middle Eastern/Latin American/African	5	1%	2%
Pacific People	14	2%	4%
Other	46	6%	1%
Not specified	208	26%	N/A

*Where people provided more than one ethnic group, they are counted more than once.

18 Only 326 submitters provided a location (41%). Given the low response for this question, this information is not provided here.

Submissions and topics counts

19 A total of 799 submissions were received during the 9 year plan community engagement process (compared with 2,327 submissions for the 10 year plan 2021-31). The vast majority of responses (724 – 91%) were received via the online feedback form. 75 paper submissions were received, including 10 on Local Water Done Well only, 52 on 9 Year plan only and 13 on both discussions.

20 Feedback was received on 62 topics. The 10 topics most frequently commented on were:

Table 3: Top ten topics* in the community engagement

Topic	Number of comments
Dunedin Tunnels Trail	124
Performing Arts	85
Peninsula Connection	83
Zero Carbon/responding to climate change	76
9 year plan – General comments	50
Transport - General	44
Smooth Hill/Green Island landfill	39
Cycleways	38
Rates	34
Community Housing	32

*This list excludes topics addressed in specific reports: Entry Charges for Toitū and Dunedin Public Art Gallery (DPAG), 231 Stuart Street, Local Water Done Well, Grants, Amenity Requests, and Funding Requests.

21 Attachment A provides a table showing all feedback topics by the number of comments received.

22 Attachment B provides social media comments received on 9 year plan communications.

Community Feedback

Questionnaire

23 103 submitters (13%) responded to the questionnaire only, and 693 respondents (87%) provided additional comments on one or several topics. The responses to the questionnaire relate to specific topics that are covered in separate reports (Entry Charges for Toitū and DPAG, 231 Stuart Street, Local Water Done Well).

24 The questionnaire responses were:

Should we remove 231 Stuart Street (formerly the Fortune Theatre) from the list of strategic assets in the DCC Significance and Engagement policy?	Count	Percent of responses	Percent of submissions
Yes, remove 231 Stuart Street from the list of strategic assets (this is our preferred option)	356	65%	45%
No, keep 231 Stuart Street as a strategic asset	193	35%	24%
No response	250	N/A	31%

Should we charge an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) for international visitors aged 16 and over, at Toitū and Dunedin Public Art Gallery?	Count	Percent of responses	Percent of submissions
Yes, introduce an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) (this is our preferred option)	337	59%	42%
No, do not introduce an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST)	238	41%	30%
No response	224	N/A	28%

Which water services delivery model do you support?	Count	Percent of responses	Percent of submissions
The Council's preferred option: an in-house delivery model	313	59%	42%
A Three Waters Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO)	154	41%	30%
No response	332	N/A	28%

Summary per topics

Dunedin Tunnels Trail

25 There were 124 comments on the Dunedin Tunnels Trail, with the vast majority (98%) supporting the project. Comment themes included safety and connection with other cycle trails.

Performing Arts

26 There were 85 comments on Performing Arts. The majority supports strategic and financial investment in the performing arts to ensure this sector's sustainability and growth in Dunedin.

27 A number of the comments provide detailed responses. The main themes are:

a) The performing arts community feels demoralised and is struggling to survive creatively or economically. Council investment in this sector is critical if this is to be turned around and there is support for the creation of an Ōtepoti Theatre Action Plan.

b) 95% of comments strongly advocate for: a) increasing general funding for the performing arts, b) reinstating the $17.1M tagged for a new performing arts venue into the 9YP budget, and c) a firm Council commitment to the provision of a new, fit-for-purpose performing arts venue.

c) 16 comments refer to the Dunedin Theatre Network/Stage South venues proposal and 13 explicitly endorse this plan. Of the three opposed, one is the Mayfair Theatre Trust, and two advocate for refurbishment of the 231 Stuart St building.

d) There is strong support for investment in existing venues Te Whare o Rukutia and the Playhouse Theatre.

e) The consensus from theatre professionals is that further investment in the Mayfair Theatre is unwise due to the building’s many structural and technical limitations, lack of accessibility, and a stage design unsuitable for contemporary theatre production. One submission supports funding this venue’s refurbishment (received from the Mayfair Theatre Trust).

Peninsula Connection

28 There were 83 comments on the Peninsula Connection, two of which contained collective submissions from 43 school children. The vast majority (over 90%) were in support of completing the project; three submitters were against and a further five wanted it delayed. Safety was the predominant theme among submitters.

Zero Carbon and Responding to climate change

29 There were 76 comments on Zero Carbon and Responding to climate change, including one collective comment from 150 individual submitters.

30 A majority of these comments refer to the Zero Carbon investment packages that were presented to Council in January 2025 and support the DCC to implement either the high or medium investment package. Others support greater investment in emissions reduction generally, without referencing the Zero Carbon investment packages.

31 Infrastructure and network improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport are the most mentioned theme. Out of these, Dunedin Tunnels Trail is the most mentioned. Several comments included passenger rail. A number of comments were in support of the DCC supporting energy efficiency measures, renewable energy and local generation.

9 year plan – General comments

32 There were 50 general comments about the 9 year plan. Of these, 14 comments raised concerns about the clarity and accessibility of the consultation information and process. Nine comments emphasised the need to prioritise core infrastructure and essential services, with concerns about excessive spending on non-essentials. Other themes included personal safety in the city, a longer-term strategic planning approach and the importance of community engagement, as well as comments on council staffing.

Transport – General

33 There were 44 general comments on Transport. A significant portion were about vegetation, with a split between increasing and decreasing the vegetation maintenance budget.

Smooth Hill/Green Island landfill

34 There were 39 comments on the proposed Smooth Hill Landfill and Green Island landfill. These included 31 comments opposed to the construction of Smooth Hill landfill based on either cost, environmental concerns, or both. Two comments requested that Council invest in a Waste to Energy facility instead.

35 Two neutral comments expressed concern regarding the danger to wildlife (particularly sea lions) from heavy vehicle traffic on Brighton Road or the potential for increased danger of bird strike at Dunedin Airport.

36 Six comments supported the construction of Smooth Hill under Council ownership and opposed the export of waste out of district.

Cycleways

37 There were 38 comments on Cycling, including 34 generally supporting investment in cycleway infrastructure.

Rates

38 There were 34 comments on rates revenue, including 27 indicating concern for the proposed rate increase, noting it should be lower and outlining impacts on low-income households. General themes included affordability, spending on essential infrastructure only and removing 'nice to haves'. Seven comments were in favour of the proposed (or higher) rate increases to maintain assets and services. Some submissions also highlighted the proportion of rates increases due to the method of rating.

Community Housing

39 There were 32 comments on Community Housing, supporting DCC Community Housing. Comments supported investment in community housing and the upgrade of current housing stock, alongside requests to reinstate funding for more community housing.

Playgrounds, Sportsfields and Tracks

40 32 submissions were received on Playgrounds, Sportsfields and Tracks. 18 submissions mentioned destination playgrounds with seven for and 11 against. Suggestions included having fewer destination playgrounds, focusing on maintenance or putting the money towards theatre instead.

41 Other themes included more playground renewals/maintenance, and creation of indoor playgrounds.

3 Waters – General

42 There were 28 general comments on 3 Waters.

43 Health New Zealand, the Otago University Student Association and four others supported the proposed expenditure in 3 Waters, with one calling it "bold" and "imperative."

44 The Disabled Persons Assembly and five others expressed concerns about the renewals backlog and suggested accelerating the completion within the 9 year plan period. There were calls for greater community involvement in decision-making processes, sustainable water management practices, and ensuring resilience to climate change. The University of Otago and one other supported the provision of 3 Waters infrastructure for growth, while one comment highlighted the need for better coordination between roading and water projects to achieve savings.

45 One comment expressed concerns about the high costs of rural schemes and two about developer expenses due to DCC 3 Waters policies. The Otago Peninsula Community Board and the Royal Albatross Centre emphasized the need for 3 Waters services on the Peninsula beyond Portobello, citing tourism pressure and land development issues. The Waikouaiti Coast Community Board requested updates on the Waikouaiti Water Treatment Plant upgrade and expressed concerns about the pressure from housing development on the water supply pipeline from Mount Grand. They also sought clarification on growth figures and raised issues about the lengthy timeframe for alternative water supplies and Northern Schemes Wastewater upgrades.

46 Specific comments on water supply included recommendation to subsidise or incentivise rainwater harvesting tanks, with one suggesting gradual responsibility for personal drinking water. One comment supported expenditure on outlying areas, one comment advocated for metered water supply connections to ensure fair payment, and one comment was concerned about the equity of private water supply infrastructure in private right-of-ways. There were also requests for considering grey water infrastructure, providing a water supply to Allanton, and stopping the fluoridation of drinking water.

47 Specific comments on wastewater included the Surrey Street Flood Action Group urgently requesting reducing wastewater overflow risk to zero within 6-12 months and making South Dunedin flood-free within five years. One comment requested that DCC enhance the wet weather performance of the wastewater network and eliminate overflows. One comment called on DCC to transform waste into an asset for energy generation, biodiversity, and sustainability, thereby reducing household costs.

48 Specific comments on stormwater included those from Health New Zealand and the Otago University Student Association which supported the proposed expenditure on flood alleviation for South Dunedin, with concerns about outdated infrastructure and growth impacts. The Mosgiel Taieri Community Board advocated for stormwater network upgrades in Mosgiel, noting recent improvements. Two comments stressed preventing stormwater runoff from new developments and infill housing, particularly in Mosgiel. One comment criticized the 9 year plan's lack of emphasis on green infrastructure for stormwater management. The Royal Albatross Centre requested addressing sediment discharges to protect the harbour's sensitive environment. The Aramoana League Inc. raised concerns about stormwater issues in Aramoana village and urged revisiting 2018 investigation work and consulting the community for solutions, noting the absence of a stormwater network in Aramoana.

Public Toilets

49 There were 25 comments on Public Toilets. 17 supported investing in new public toilets, four were against further investment and the remainder had mixed views. Some submitters questioned the cost to build the Changing Places bathroom. Many of the submissions specified preferred locations for new public toilets.

Dunedin Railway Ltd

50 There were 24 comments on rail services in Dunedin, including 13 in support of funding rail services, and eight against. Many of those in support emphasised the importance of rail for tourism. Those opposed suggested alternatives such as converting the railway track into a cycleway or reallocating funds to other projects. Financial sustainability was a concern, with several submissions advocating for better cost management and a user-pays approach. Other comments related to introducing passenger rail options connecting to Dunedin airport or to Christchurch city.

Enterprise Dunedin – General

51 There were 23 general comments on Enterprise Dunedin. A large proportion of the submissions supported increased funding and support for the city’s entrepreneurial and Start Up Dunedin ecosystem and a greater proportion of operational spending going towards the city’s vibrant economy. Submitters supported a range of possible initiatives, including increased funding for business event attraction, support for innovation, technology and new industries, commitment to regional connectivity and air access, strong economic development leadership and collaboration, investment in events to stimulate growth and a strategic and sustainable approach to tourism. Beautification of the city, including Middlemarch, was raised in terms of being more attractive to tourists in the future.

Working with mana whenua

52 There were 23 comments on working with mana whenua. This category includes commentary (support, against, or neutral) specific to working/engaging with mana whenua, Te Pae Māori, Te Taki Haruru, or the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. An overwhelming majority of comments expressed support, with the balance neutral or opposed. Nine comments were in support of engaging with mana whenua/mātāwaka, five of which wanting to see improvement in working with mana whenua or see mana whenua representation in decision-making. Six submissions were in favour of Te Taki Haruru and its implementation, four were in favour of Te Pae Māori, and three commented that DCC’s decision-making should be done in a way that aligns with the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Live Music

53 There were 20 comments on Live Music. 16 comments reflect strong community backing for the continued implementation and funding of the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan. Two comments do not support funding the Plan. Comments highlight the importance of the plan for the future of Dunedin's music culture and community wellbeing, with one submitter referencing recent Massey University research which shows the positive economic impact of live music and other performance to the country. The Otago University Student Association submission provides recommendations to enhance student engagement and access to cultural activities in the city.

Festivals and Events Plan

54 There were 19 comments on the Festivals and Events Plan. Submitters mentioned the need to ensure consideration of accessibility at events. Comments also broadly covered the value of arts-based events plus others to the city and the need to position Dunedin as the South Islands cultural capital, as it was felt that Dunedin would be unable to attract large one-off events into the city once the Christchurch Stadium is opened. Comments also went on to raise the lack of venues in Dunedin that are fit for purpose for at least 400 seats. Submitters supported the uplift in the festivals and events plan but stressed the need to invest in current established events rather than new one-off events to ensure well-attended events can be self-sustaining. Continued and increased budget was also highlighted by some submitters as it positions Dunedin as a vibrant destination ensuring year-round activity and business confidence.

South Dunedin Future

55 There were 19 comments on South Dunedin Future. Themes include the desire for investment over short, medium, and long term, with an initial focus on infrastructure to address short-term risks, criticism of the current 3 Waters network, which is perceived as undersized, underperforming, and/or otherwise insufficient for South Dunedin. Comments paradoxically acknowledge the complexity of challenges facing South Dunedin, while at the same time advocating for quick, simple, or cheap solutions, or general openness to a range of approaches. Some comments express desire for more information/detail on implementation (i.e. who will bear the financial burden). There was some confusion and conflation of issues (man-made, natural, or mix).

Council Controlled Companies and Events Funding

56 There were 17 comments on funding for events and Council controlled companies. Of these, 15 comments addressed stadium and event funding, with ten opposing additional funding to attract events. Common themes supporting this stance included a preference to prioritise investment in other infrastructure projects and the performing arts. Multiple submitters specifically referenced the Tunnels Trail project and reallocating funds to performing arts venues. Two comments supported increased event funding, driving significant economic benefits, supporting business confidence and enhancing Ōtepoti Dunedin's profile as a vibrant destination. Other comments emphasised that the stadium should be able to generate a profit from its operations without requiring further financial support and noted the importance of reducing fees for community groups and ensuring events remain inclusive and accessible.

57 Two comments raised concerns about Aurora Energy, suggesting the exploration of an alternative ownership structure, such as transferring assets to a Consumer Trust, to alleviate the debt burden on the Group's accounts. One comment also proposed selling the asset to help offset water infrastructure costs.

Development Contributions

58 There were 15 comments on Development Contributions (DCs), including 11 opposing the proposed increases. Submitters argue that the development contributions policy (DCP) fails to support growth and will deter investment, particularly in an already heavily regulated consenting environment - contrary to the intent of the 2GP, which seeks to enable additional development. There is a general view that the DCP hasn't been consulted properly with the community and fails to justify the increased DCs, requesting the Council to reconsider the timelines and scale of proposed charges, particularly in Middlemarch where increases are viewed as unsustainable and a barrier to growth.

59 Several comments suggest alternative charging structures such as tiered development contributions based on development size and number of lots and exemptions for affordable housing projects. Others call for improved collaboration between Council and developers and greater transparency in how development contributions are collected and used. Other comments criticise the motive behind the increase, urging Council to review internal costs and procurement processes first. One submission states the DCP does not fully take into account the lower demand of some units such as retirement housing and aged care facilities.

60 The two comments in support of the DCP were short in contrast and supported the principle of that growth.

Aquatics

61 There were 14 comments relating to Aquatics. Five comments supported the refurbishment of Moana Pool, with two suggesting more work is required. Other themes around Moana Pool included replacement or upgrades to hydroslides and changing rooms, sealing of the carpark, and improving physical and financial accessibility. Two comments requested reinstating the physio pool.

Otago Regional Council

62 There were 14 comments on the Otago Regional Council which were passed on to this organisation.

City Development – General

63 There were 11 general comments on City Development. Three comments express concern the city was looking tired and there needed to be more attention to amenity improvements. Two comments express concern with infill apartments with no green space. Three submitters wanting to encourage harbourside development. Three comments including one from the Department of Conservation have sought more planning for biodiversity and wildlife. The Department of Conservation also supports the continuation of the biodiversity fund, encourage medium and high-density housing over sprawl. Finally, one comment was in support of allowing more tiny houses.

Heritage

64 There were 11 comments on Heritage. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and the University of Otago expressed strong support for funding for the implementation of the Heritage Action Plan. Support for heritage funding was also expressed by the Dunedin Area Citizens Association and one other submitter owning a heritage building, while two other submitters did not want funding for the Heritage Action Plan.

65 The Southern Heritage Trust supported funding for the Heritage Action Plan and requested stronger district plan rules around the demolition of pre-1940 buildings.

66 The Strath Taieri Community Board has proposed a local heritage precinct for Middlemarch, Sutton, and Pukerangi train stations that would support community-led management to preserve cultural value and boost rural tourism, to be included as part of the Heritage Action Plan.

67 One comment sought stricter bylaws against "demolition by neglect," incentives for renovating historic buildings, and aesthetic parameters for new designs, all aimed at enhancing tourism and maintaining the city's unique character.

Tourism and City Marketing

68 There were 11 comments on Tourism and City Marketing showing general support for the projects listed in the plan as well as some additional ideas. Themes included re-imagining the harbour precinct for making the city more appealing, more international routes for the airport, increasing the tourism budget allocation, supporting sustainable tourism practices, and continuing to develop strategic event partnerships.

69 Some comments questioned the ability to drive visitors to the city which was perceived as looking tired and run down. The concept of new product development was also raised to attract more tourists to the city and the idea of a fee for cruise ship passengers to maintain the city.

70 A need for the development of a new city slogan was raised and major promotion into our offer as a city both nationally and internationally.

Property – General

71 There were 11 general comments on Property. All of these questioned the future of 65 Crawford Street (previously known as Sammy's), with some suggesting it should be sold with the funds invested in Performing Arts, or repurposed. Positive comments were received about the relationship between community organisations and the DCC (from Dunedin Gasworks Museum Trust and ARANZ). Two comments suggested identifying surplus properties for potential disposal.

Ara Toi – General

72 There were 10 general comments on Ara Toi. Comments acknowledged the need for and importance of arts, creativity and culture in Ōtepoti Dunedin. They note the cultural history of Ōtepoti Dunedin, the economic benefits of a vibrant creative economy, and the vital role arts, creativity, and culture plays in fostering engaged and thriving communities. Most advocate for greater funding and practical initiatives to support local artists, local arts events and activities, and cultural infrastructure (including music and theatre venues).

73 Comments noted that a lack of ongoing, robust financial investment in the arts in general, and in performing arts specifically, has created a deteriorating and despairing performing arts sector. There was concern that budget has been committed to the Festivals and Events Plan, and DVML, to attract events to the city, but local festivals and creative events remain chronically underfunded. Creative professionals struggle to sustain economically viable careers and a number have left the city.

Finance – General

74 There were nine general comments on Finance. These comments focused on the level of council spending/expenditure and fiscal management, with a key theme of wanting Council to find ways to reduce spending, especially in non-infrastructure areas.

Urban Centre Upgrades

75 There were seven comments on Urban Centre Upgrades including from the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board requesting input from urban design in the beautification of Waikouaiti's northern entrance to the city. Also requested were: upgrade pavements in the North East Valley centre to make them more accessible, beautification of the Middlemarch town centre, the POWA supports upgrades to Waikouaiti's main street. The Greater Green Island Community Network supports on amenity improvements to the Green Island centre, and Health New Zealand and CCS Disability Action support funding for centres upgrades.

Waste and Environmental Solutions – General

76 There were seven general comments on Waste and Environmental Solutions. These included a call for Council to place more emphasis on waste minimisation, especially for building waste and packaging, a call for Council to include University and Polytechnic students in considerations for a central city rummage store, a call to use rubbish as a resource for electricity generation and fertilizers, and a call to make kerbside bins out of clear plastic so that collection staff could easily spot contaminated bins.

Parks and Recreation – General

77 There were six general comments on Parks and Recreation. Two comments requested to mow sports fields more often with a catcher. Other comments requested: not to provide extra funding for mowing grass, to remove all blue gum trees in road carriage ways, to start work on the Tomahawk old school site.

78 One comment thanked the DCC for the work on the basketball court at Warrington.

79 One comment was against the proposed increase to 5% sports field charges as it would result in an increase of fees for players. It also asks about being charged for electricity.

Kettle Park

80 There were five comments supporting coastline management and Kettle Park remediation.

South Dunedin Short Term Projects

81 There were five comments on South Dunedin short term projects. Themes included relitigating issues associated with the 2015 flood, advocating for council action to address wastewater overflows at Surrey Street, conflating Surrey Street wastewater issues with wider South Dunedin stormwater issues and flood risk.

Tūhura Otago Museum

82 There were five comments on Tūhura Otago Museum. Four comments called for visitor fees to be applied also to Tūhura Otago Museum. One comment from the Disabled Persons Assembly recognised the efforts that have gone to make the premises accessible and inclusive.

Elected Members

83 There were four comments on elected members. One comment asked for better visibility of Councillors’ votes. Two comments related to projects particularly supported by Councillors and lobby groups. One comment related to Councillors’ remuneration.

Late Submissions

84 There were four late submissions. Two submissions, including one from the Otago Peninsula Eco Restoration Alliance, related to completing the final stages of the Peninsula connection. One submission questioned the decision-making process. One submission detailed topics raised by the Taieri Network.

Rating Method

85 There were four comments on Rating method suggesting new targeted rates or changing the current rating method to reduce rates for low fixed income households. Suggestions included targeted rates for short term accommodation providers and rental properties.

Animal Services

86 There were three comments on Animal Services. All of these related to dog control and one comment also related to cat management.

Council Communications

87 There were three comments on Council Communications. The comments contained compliments about our consultation documents and FYI. One comment from the Otago University Student Association mentioned collaboration and engagement opportunities between students and Council, which would need to be further explored.

Customer and Regulatory – General

88 There were two general comments on Customer and Regulatory, one relating to customer service and one relating to consenting and regulatory processes.

Building Services

89 There were two comments on Building services, one relating to the speed of building consents and one about reviewing building codes.

Libraries – General

90 There were two comments on Libraries, one asking for the library service to continue to be funded and one asking for this funding for books and materials to be increased. Both support the dedication of the 1^st floor space of the new South Dunedin Library as space for community organisations. One comment recommends that the libraries do not repeat the closures over the Christmas period.

Parking Enforcement

91 There was one comment on parking enforcement relating to George Street.

DPAG – General

92 There was one general comment on DPAG, regarding the access to archives.

Community Boards

93 Submissions were received from all six community boards.

Mosgiel Taieri Community Board

94 The MTCB outlines the need for a heavy transport by-pass for Mosgiel, supports the development of cycleways and walkways onto the Taieri and across the Taieri, insists on flood protection for the Taieri, underlines safety issues on some roads and pedestrian ways in Mosgiel and Outram and support the upgrade of Memorial Park to become a destination playground.

Otago Peninsula Community Board

95 The OPCB strongly supports the completion of the Peninsula Connection, the development of the Tomahawk School, raises the problem of the location of the public toilets in Macandrew Bay, identifies the need for key water and waste reticulation services for the communities east of Portobello, and insists on greater climate change preparedness and future mitigation.

Saddle Hill Community Board

96 The SHCB advocates for a shared pathway between Waldronville and Ocean View, for an erosion plan to address the significant erosion of the Southern Coast including the Brighton Domain, for a high level of regular and planned maintenance on our roads, particularly the reinstatement of the seal extension programme and advocate for the reintroduction of the rural roads sealing programme with McMaster Road, for playgrounds upgrades, for a new public toilet at the Kaikorai Estuary as well as the inclusion of an additional public toilet at the Brighton Domain.

97 The SHCB expresses its view against the construction of a landfill.

98 The SHCB also supports the submission from the Sunnyvale Community Centre for continued funding to enable the improvements needed to the centre.

Strath Taieri Community Board

99 The STCB insists on prioritising road safety improvements, especially around schools. The STCB supports the return to the former frequency of kerbside mowing and vegetation control, to maintain the current community grants budget, to upgrade the Middlemarch public playground as well as the Middlemarch town centre, to retain the existing Dunedin-Middlemarch rail infrastructure, to upgrade Moana Pool.

100 The STCB supports climate change goals and proposes several initiatives and make several comments around 3 Waters.

Waikouaiti Coast Community Board

101 The WCCB expresses a range of concerns regarding 3 Waters. The WCCB requests an update on the upgrade of the Waikouaiti Water Treatment Plant, expresses concern about the resilience of water supply from Mount Grand which services Waitati, Warrington, Seacliff and some parts of Karitāne/Merton, suburbs that see an increase in housing development, supports mana whenua concern with the current water take from the Waikouaiti River.

102 The WCCB notes that despite the success of the new wheelie bins, some rural areas have had issues.

103 The WCCB supports extra funding for frequency of roadside vegetation control.

104 The WCCB request that all coasts be taken into account for a Climate Resilience Framework, including Blueskin Bay; Warrington Spit; Karitāne foreshore; Karitāne Harbour including the deteriorating Fishermen’s Wharf; Waikouaiti River Estuary and Wetlands; Waikouaiti foreshore along Matanaka Drive.

105 The WCCB also suggests a replacement toilet at the Truby King Reserve carpark and an update of the Reserve management Plan that includes Mount Watkin (Hikaroroa) Recreation Reserve, praises the upgrade of playground and swimming pools, underlines some road safety issues, supports the development of Park and Ride facilities for those residents who can’t cycle or walk and supports the development of cycleways.

West Harbour Community Board

106 The WHCB requests: improvements to the George St Port Chalmers Public carpark, completion of the carpark at the Aramoana playground adjacent to the hall, upgrade of the public toilets for Pūrākaunui and St Leonards, safety improvements to the Back Beach area, urgent reinstatement of the missing safety mirror at the Scott Memorial corner, reinstatement of grass verge cutting.

107 The WHCB also requests an increased focus on climate resilience for coastal and exposed communities. In the short term, they would like the two decommissioned local dams to at least be retained for firefighting and recreational purposes.

Signatories

Author:

Alix de Blic - Senior Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Nadia Wesley-Smith - Corporate Policy Manager - Acting

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	List of topics and counts	126
⇩b	Social Media comments	127

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, economic, environmental, and 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	✔	☐	☐

Community engagement is one of the key components of the Council’s long-term planning process.

Māori Impact Statement

As part of the DCC’s ongoing commitment to working in partnership with mana whenua, consultation and engagement processes for the 9 year plan ensure opportunities for Māori, both mana whenua and mātāwaka, to contribute to the decision-making process.

Sustainability

The community was able to express their views and aspirations relating to the DCC’s work towards sustainability through this engagement process.

Zero carbon

This engagement process did not materially impact on city-wide or DCC emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This engagement was undertaken in relation to the 9 year plan and related strategies and policies.

Financial considerations

This engagement was resourced from existing budgets.

Significance

While a key component of the Council’s long-term planning process, this engagement is assessed as low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

External engagement was undertaken as detailed in this report.

Engagement - internal

The engagement was supported by staff from the Corporate Policy, Communications and Marketing, Finance, Housing, Community Partnerships, 3 Waters and Transport teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Risks were identified and managed as part of the engagement planning and implementation.

Conflict of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards were included in the engagement process, and resources packs were distributed to Community Board areas.

Council

26 May 2025

Smooth Hill - Submissions and update - 9 year plan 2025-2034

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions and Legal Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Council’s draft 9 Year Plan includes budgeted funding of $92.4 million for the proposed Smooth Hill Landfill (Smooth Hill).

2 There have been a range of submissions regarding Smooth Hill.

3 This report:

a) Provides details regarding the submissions; and

b) Discusses the issues raised in submissions.

4 This report also attaches the report to Council on 25 November 2025, including three Morrison Low reports which compare the following options:

a) Council building Smooth Hill alone (ie without a joint venture partner).

b) Council building Smooth Hill in a 50:50 partnership with a private waste company.

c) Council exporting waste out of district.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Confirms its decision to build Smooth Hill Landfill alone and that $92.4 million be included in the 9 Year Plan 2025-34 for its construction.

BACKGROUND

Reports to Council

5 On 25 November 2024, there was a report to Council called “Waste Futures – Commercial Matters” (November Report).

6 The November Report is attached as Attachment A, including three reports from Morrison Low (collectively referred to in this report as the Morrison Low Reports):

a) An updated DBC2 (February 2023);

b) A comparison of disposal costs (September 2024); and

c) Questions and Answers (November 2024).

7 On 25 November 2024, Council resolved as follows:

“Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Bill Acklin):

That the Council:

a) Decides in principle for inclusion in the draft 9 Year Plan 2025-34, that it would prefer to:

i) Build a landfill at Smooth Hill, rather than export waste out of district; and

ii) Build a landfill at Smooth Hill alone, rather than in a partnership with a private waste company.

b) Notes that this decision is subject to consultation through the 9 Year Plan 2025‑34 as the funding will be included in the draft 9 Year Plan 2025-34 budget.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker and Brent Weatherall (11).

Against: Crs Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (2).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 2

Motion carried (CNL/2024/230)

8 On 28 January 2025, there was a public noting report to Council, called “Smooth Hill Update” (January Report).

discussion

9-year plan consultation document

9 The draft 9-year plan consultation document 2025-34 included a discussion headed “A new city landfill at Smooth Hill”. An extract from the 9-year plan is attached as Attachment B.

Submissions Received

10 Thirty-nine submissions were received in relation to Smooth Hill:

a) Thirty-one submissions opposed the construction of Smooth Hill.

b) Six submissions supported the construction of Smooth Hill.

c) Two submissions did not clearly state a view but expressed concerns regarding wildlife and any potential for bird strike.

11 A summary of submissions is attached as Attachment C.

12 This report discusses some of the key submission points.

Concerns regarding costs

13 Some submitters expressed concerns regarding matters such as:

a) the cost of constructing and/or operating Smooth Hill.

b) the risk of cost escalation for the construction of Smooth Hill.

Summary of the financial analysis by Morrison Low

14 Morrison Low completed extensive financial analysis on the following options:

a) Council building Smooth Hill alone (ie without a joint venture partner).

b) Council building Smooth Hill in a 50:50 partnership with a private waste company.

c) Council exporting waste out of district.

15 The Morrison Low Reports refer to these options respectively as Option 1, Option 8, and Option 12. This is because they are the three short-listed options selected from an initial long list of 13 options.

16 Based on current waste volumes to Green Island Landfill and current cost estimates for construction of Smooth Hill, Morrison Low’s financial modelling over a 20-year period indicates that:

a) The cheapest option is to build Smooth Hill alone. This is because, although Council has the full construction costs, it retains all gate revenue.

b) The overall cost of disposal over 20 years (whole of life cashflow) is estimated to be approximately:

· Build Smooth Hill alone: $151 million

· Build Smooth Hill in a 50:50 partnership with a private waste company: $218 million

· Export Dunedin’s municipal waste out of district: $296 million

c) For the export option to become comparable to the cost of building Smooth Hill, the export provider’s gate rates would need to be reduced to nearly half of that currently payable under the contract between Council and AB Lime.

17 The two key financial risks regarding Smooth Hill are the potential for a reduction in tonnage and/or an increase in construction costs.

18 Morrison Low’s modelling indicates that:

a) Exporting waste would be more expensive than building Smooth Hill, either alone or in partnership, even if Council were to receive no commercial tonnage at Smooth Hill.

b) The estimated Smooth Hill construction costs would need to increase by approximately 70% for the cost of exporting waste to become comparable to the cost of building Smooth Hill.

c) The option of a 50:50 partnership between Council and a private waste company becomes the cheapest option (over a 20 year period) if the volume of commercial waste received at Smooth Hill drops from 26,000 tonnes per annum to 21,000 tonnes per annum.

19 Morrison Low’s modelling is based on a 20 year period. This is an industry standard as modelling becomes unreliable after this period. However, Smooth Hill is expected to last:

a) Forty (40) years if current annual waste volumes continue; and

b) More than 70 years if the annual volume of waste is reduced to 35,000 tonnes per annum.

Further details regarding the Morrison Low financial analysis

20 The Morrison Low Reports compare the shortlisted options on a total cost of disposal basis (i.e., consolidation, bulk haulage and disposal costs, and excluding waste levy and ETS costs that are the same for all modelled options).

21 Bulk haulage costs have been modelled based on:

a) An allowance of $72 per tonne for transporting waste to the AB Lime Landfill in Winton; and

b) An allowance of $17 per tonne for transporting waste to a landfill at Smooth Hill.

Assumptions

22 In completing its financial modelling, Morrison Low has needed to make certain assumptions, including the following:

a) Morrison Low has assumed that the annual tonnage being delivered to the Green Island Landfill and then the Smooth Hill Landfill will be approximately as follows:

Waste source	Tonnes per annum
DCC waste:	35,000
Kerbside collections (after recycling and organics diversion)	21,000
Green Island public transfer station	6,800
Wastewater treatment plant solids	7,000
Rural transfer stations	200
Commercial waste:	25,900
Total	60,900

b) Morrison Low has assumed that the initial cost of building a landfill at Smooth Hill will be approximately $80 million. This cost is based on recent calculations by GHD using the Full Cost Accounting Model and includes a 20% contingency. This cost is for both the landfill itself and the associated access road from the State Highway. (Note: The draft budget for the 9 Year Plan allocated $92.4 million for the landfill and access road. This is higher than the $80 million estimated by GHD because an additional contingency has been allowed for unexpected ground conditions during construction (particularly the access road), additional design and compliance costs during detailed design, and subsequent contract variations).

c) Morrison Low has assumed that the operation costs will be $4 million per annum (using 2024 dollar values) to cover waste placement, environmental controls and landfill monitoring.

d) For Smooth Hill, Morrison Low has assumed that the gate rates will be:

i. For general waste - $172.50 per tonne (plus waste levy plus ETS plus GST). The current charge for disposal of general waste at the Green Island Landfill is $120.15 per tonne (plus waste levy plus ETS plus GST).

For special waste - $224.25 per tonne (plus waste levy plus ETS plus GST). The current charge for disposal of special waste at the Green Island Landfill is $238.15 per tonne (plus waste levy plus ETS plus GST).

e) For the export option, Morrison Low has assumed that the gate rates will be:

i. $133 per tonne (plus waste levy, ETS and ETS margin, plus GST) for general waste; and

ii. $342 per tonne (plus waste levy, ETS and ETS margin plus GST) for special waste.

f) Morrison Low has assumed that the Green Island Landfill will be used for the first 6 years of the 20-year assessment period.

23 Morrison Low’s financial comparison of options is detailed in the table below:

Options	Option 1: 100% Council owned	Option 8: 50:50 partnership	Option 12: Out of District
Description	Closure of GI for landfilling by Jun-30. SH built and operated by DCC alone	Closure of GI for landfilling by Jun-30. SH built and operated by DCC entering 50:50 partnership with private operator	Closure of GI for landfilling by Jun-30. DCC transport council-controlled waste to out-of-district landfill (AB Lime)
NPV ($million)	(89)	(103)	(120)
Whole of Life Cashflow 20-Year Total Cost ($million)	(151)	(218)	(296)
Average Annual Cashflow ($million)	(7.6)	(10.9)	(14.8)
Annual Rates Impact Average ($million)	(4.8)	(9.3)	(14.8)
Capital Requirements 20 years ($million)	(143)	(74)	(6)
Capital Requirements 10 years ($million)	(97)	(51)	(6)

Cost controls and risk management

24 There will be a project team established to ensure that there is a robust procurement and contract management process for Smooth Hill, and that all risks are appropriately managed.

25 Procurement will be through an open market tender process. This is likely to be a dynamic process, and there will be regular updates to Council, particularly if there are any indications of cost increases.

Concerns regarding transparency and process

26 Some submitters expressed concerns regarding transparency and process.

27 Council is required to balance its commercial interests with requirements for transparency given the public interest in matters like Smooth Hill. In November 2024, Council had solid commercial grounds for considering certain material in non-public. Now, however, those grounds have changed and the full November 2024 report is provided publicly. This report shows the cost comparisons of building Smooth Hill versus exporting waste to the AB Lime Landfill.

28 Regarding process:

a) Council’s Waste Futures project is following the Better Business Case model, which is the model developed by New Zealand Treasury and NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi for projects of this nature.

b) The aim of the Better Business Case process is to ensure a robust rationale for investment.

29 The process for Smooth Hill has included:

a) Council signing agreements to purchase the land at Smooth Hill in the 1990s.

b) Council designating the land at Smooth Hill as a proposed landfill in the 1990s and recording this in its planning maps.

c) Council establishing the Waste Futures project in 2019. This project included various interlinked workstreams, such as the detailed business cases, obtaining resource consents, planning for contingencies and preparing Waste Minimisation and Management Plans (WMMPs) etc.

d) Numerous technical and consultancy reports, including the Morrison Low Reports.

e) Numerous reports to Council and various community engagement activities.

Concerns regarding whether AB Lime has been adequately investigated as an alternative option

30 Some submitters were concerned that there may have been inadequate consideration given to the option of exporting waste.

31 As set out in the November Report, the option of exporting waste has been fully investigated and evaluated over many years. The option of exporting is one the three shortlisted options which have been fully analysed by Morrison Low and staff.

32 In May 2022, Council issued AB Lime with a Request for Information (RFI) seeking information on a wide range of matters, including:

a) Whether AB Lime would be able to take Council’s wastewater sludges and/or general waste and/or hazardous and special waste and, if so, on what terms and conditions.

b) Whether AB Lime’s Landfill would be a feasible alternative to Council building a landfill at Smooth Hill.

c) Whether AB Lime would be able to take waste from Council in the case of an emergency.

33 The RFI was issued to AB Lime so that Council could receive comprehensive pricing details from AB Lime, and also as a contingency for Council (eg if the Green Island Landfill capacity was exhausted before Smooth Hill is operational).

34 The RFI led to a contract dated 22 November 2022 between the Council and AB Lime (AB Lime Contract).

35 The AB Lime Contract included pricing and mechanisms for price increases. This information was used by Morrison Low to compare the option of building Smooth Hill against the option of exporting waste.

36 Morrison Low concluded that, based on current information, the export of waste is likely to be significantly more costly over the long term than building Smooth Hill.

Environmental Concerns

37 Some submitters were concerned about various environmental matters, including the potential effects on Otokia Creek and Brighton Beach.

38 Environmental concerns were fully canvassed through the resource consent process that was undertaken between August 2020 and May 2023.

39 Some submitters raised the same concerns that they raised as part of the resource consent process. Those concerns were considered by the Independent Hearing Panel as part of the resource consent Hearing, and resource consents were granted with conditions aimed at addressing any potential environmental effects.

40 The resource consent conditions include:

a) A Community Liaison Group (CLG) must be established to facilitate ongoing engagement between the consent holder and the community on the design, construction and operation of the landfill.

b) An Independent Peer Review Panel (IPRP) must also be established to review design, construction, operation, and closure of the landfill.

c) Three years of baseline groundwater, surface water, and freshwater ecology monitoring must be completed prior to construction. This monitoring will inform various management plans including the overall Landfill Management Plan that must be developed in consultation with the CLG and Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou.

d) The landfill must be designed and constructed with a landfill liner to isolate landfill leachate, a leachate collection system, and leachate storage and management facilities to store leachate prior to removal from the landfill site.

e) A full detailed design report must be submitted to the IPRP and to the ORC for certification prior to construction.

f) During operation of the landfill, the conditions of consent:

i. Impose limits on the site operating hours;

ii. Establish waste acceptance criteria (including the requirement that to the extent practicable, putrescible waste be removed prior to placement of waste at Smooth Hill); and

iii. Require covering of highly odorous waste within 30 minutes of placement at the landfill.

g) The operation of the landfill will also be subject to several requirements related to landfill fire prevention and detection, including that a person trained in landfill fire detection always supervises the active landfilling area during operating hours.

Concerns regarding bird strike

41 Some submitters were concerned about a risk of bird strike given the proximity of Dunedin Airport to Smooth Hill.

42 This issue was specifically considered as part of the resource consent process for Smooth Hill. Expert evidence was provided on this topic, and a range of conditions were imposed on the consents by the Independent Hearing Panel to manage any risks.

43 In essence, a suite of conditions has been included in the resource consent to monitor and manage Southern Black Backed Gulls (SBBG). The conditions include preparation of a SBBG Management Plan within six months of the granting of consent (completed), monthly baseline bird monitoring to establish a baseline estimate of any bird-related risks around Dunedin Airport, completion of a full bird strike risk assessment at least six months prior to construction of the landfill, and preparation of a Landfill Operational Bird Management Plan. There are also escalating management interventions to manage the risk of birds establishing at the Landfill that are required to be followed, reported on and monitored.

Concerns regarding strict nature of consent conditions

44 Some submitters queried the viability of operating Smooth Hill given the strict resource consent conditions (eg in relation to bird management). Some submitters were concerned that the consent conditions would either be unworkable and/or costly.

45 A decision granting the resource consents was issued on 9 September 2022. At that time, Council staff and its consultants carefully reviewed the consent conditions to ensure that Council was satisfied that the consent conditions are workable and that they can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Staff are satisfied that the consent conditions are workable and that operational costs have been accurately budgeted as part of the 9 Year Plan process.

46 The Independent Hearing Panel commented that the resource consent conditions are modelled on a range of other modern landfills in New Zealand and represent best industry practice.

Concerns regarding alignment with waste management goals

47 Some submitters were concerned that building a landfill at Smooth Hill does not align with Council’s waste minimisation goals.

48 However, having a sufficient level of tonnage to provide revenue that funds the construction and operation costs of Smooth Hill is not necessarily inconsistent with Council’s waste minimisation goals. For example, Council could focus on reducing current waste streams, but seek to broaden its catchment area. This is consistent with New Zealand having fewer but larger and better managed landfills.

Concerns regarding a potential reduction in tonnage

49 Some submitters were concerned that a reduction in tonnage would create a financial risk, as there needs to be a sufficient level of annual waste to generate revenue to offset the initial capital costs of building a landfill and to cover operating costs.

50 This is a risk that will need to be managed. However:

a) There are potential mechanisms to mitigate this risk, including Council seeking to broaden its catchment area, preserving the option to have a joint venture partner if it becomes apparent that this is desirable, and potentially incentivising a management contract for Smooth Hill.

b) Even if Council were to receive only its own waste, Morrison Low’s modelling indicates (based on current information) that building Smooth Hill would still be cheaper over the long term than exporting waste.

c) Council expects that it will need to remove approximately 220,000 cubic metres from the old landfill at Kettle Park. This is likely to equate to more than 300,000 tonnes of waste.

d) While Smooth Hill is expected to last 40 years based on current annual tonnages, the life of Smooth Hill could be extended (up to 70 years) with lower tonnages.

51 AB Lime indicated that it may look to set up a transfer station in Dunedin so that it could take waste from Dunedin to its site in Winton, Southland. It is free to do so.

52 Like the Green Hill Landfill, the Smooth Hill Landfill would have a commercial landfill operator. Council would explore all options with its commercial operator to ensure that Smooth Hill is run efficiently and cost effectively, with Dunedin’s long term goals in mind (which are partly financial and partly non-financial).

Reasons for Smooth Hill and concerns regarding the export of waste

53 Some submitters supported the development of Smooth Hill and/or expressed concerns regarding the export of waste. For some:

a) Operating a landfill is seen as a core Council function.

b) The export of waste is seen as being inefficient, risky and an unsustainable way of dealing with Dunedin city’s waste, both in financial and environmental terms.

c) Smooth Hill already has resource consent, showing that the environmental considerations have already been considered.

d) The development and operation of Smooth Hill will allow Council to retain financial and environmental responsibility for the management of the city’s waste.

Other matters

54 During the 9 Year Plan Hearings, it was suggested that the Council pause the development of Smooth Hill. It was also suggested that there could perhaps be a trial period for the export of waste. Council has sent some waste to AB Lime, but the volume has been a relatively small waste stream compared to the city’s total waste volumes.

55 One matter that Council will need to bear in mind is the lapse date for the Smooth Hill consents. The consents will lapse in 2033 if:

a) the consents are not given effect to before that date; or

b) an application has not been made and granted to extend the lapse date.

56 The words “given effect to” do not mean that the landfill must be operating by that date but something substantial would be expected to give effect to the consents. The ORC has discretion whether to lapse the dates on the consents but must consider certain matters such as whether substantial progress or effort has been, and continues to be, made towards giving effect to the consents.

OPTIONS

57 The options were fully canvassed in the reports to Council on 25 November 2024. They are therefore not repeated here.

NEXT STEPS

58 If Council confirms its decision to build Smooth Hill alone, then budget of $92.4 million will be confirmed in the 9 Year Plan 2025-34.

Signatories

Author:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Karilyn Canton - Chief In-House Legal Counsel

Authoriser:

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇨a	November Report - Waste Futures - Commercial Matters (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨b	Extract from 9-year plan - A new city landfill at Smooth Hill (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨c	Summary of Submissions (Under Separate Cover 1)

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, economic, environmental, and 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	☐	☐	✔
Spatial Plan	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The Waste Futures Project contributes to the Environment Strategy by enabling a robust evaluation of potential options for Council to continue to ensure effective reduction and management of solid waste to achieve the goals set out in its WMMP, and its Carbon Zero Policy.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua have been identified as a stakeholder in the Waste Futures project and have been engaged during the Better Business Case options development phase, and the resource consenting processes for both the Smooth Hill Landfill and the Green Island Landfill. Mana whenua do not support the export of waste out of district. This has been stated as being unacceptable to mana whenua (as per Mr Ellison’s evidence to the Smooth Hill Hearing on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou).

Sustainability

The Council’s overall objective for the Waste Futures project is to ensure effective reduction and management of solid waste to achieve the goals set out in Council’s WMMP. Council’s new kerbside collection service and Resource Recovery Park have been designed to assist in meeting Council’s waste minimisation goals. Having a sufficient level of tonnage to provide revenue that funds the construction and operation costs of a landfill is not necessarily inconsistent with Council’s waste minimisation goals. For example, Council could focus on reducing current waste streams, but seek to broaden its catchment area.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

If Council confirms its decision to build Smooth Hill alone then $92.4 million will be included in the 9 Year Plan 2025-35 for adoption by 30 June 2025.

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are discussed in the body of this report and the report to Council on 25 November 2024 (as attached to this report).

Significance

The decision is considered medium to high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Smooth Hill and the associated funding of $92.4 million was included in the 9 Year Plan consultation document.

Engagement – external

Smooth Hill has been discussed widely for many years. The previous 10 year Plan consultation document included commentary on Smooth Hill. The resource consent process for Smooth Hill was a fully notified public process. There has also been a community liaison group established as part of the consent process and that group has been formed and is meeting. There have been discussions with AB Lime Limited, including for a contract between Council and AB Lime Limited.

Engagement - internal

There has been extensive internal engagement for the Waste Futures project, including Waste and Environmental Solutions, Legal Services, Finance, Transport, 3 Waters, Communications and Marketing.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Legal advice has been undertaken on the various components of the Waste Futures Project to ensure statutory compliance and minimisation of legal risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Both the current landfill site at Green Island and proposed landfill site at Smooth Hill are of particular interest to the Saddle Hill and Mosgiel Taieri Community Boards. There have been periodic updates to these Community Boards. The Saddle Hill Community Board submitted as part of the 9 Year Plan 2025-34 consultation process, opposing the construction of Smooth Hill Landfill. The Chair of the SHCB is the current Chair of the Community Liaison Group established as part of the resource consent conditions.

Council

26 May 2025

Capital Expenditure Update - 9 year plan 2025-2034

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purposes of this report are to:

· provide updates on the capital expenditure programme, approved by Council at its meeting on 28 January 2025, for the purpose of public consultation.

· seek Council approval of a revised capital expenditure programme for inclusion in the 9 year plan 2025-34.

2 Required changes to the capital expenditure programme are outlined and discussed in the report. The changes reflect the latest capital expenditure forecast for 2024/25 (current year), delivery schedule changes and revised project scopes.

3 Overall, the 2025/26 budget has changed from $215 million to $232 million. Across the 9 year period, a revised total capital expenditure is $1.945 billion, including the 2025/26 changes and other rephasing of budgets. Across the 10 year period, including a forecast for the current financial year, the total capital expenditure is $2.095 billion, compared to a total of $2.096 billion in the draft 9 year plan.

4 This report contains the following attachments:

· The updated capital expenditure programme is provided at Attachment A.

· Capital Expenditure Summary of Changes is at Attachment B.

· Roading and Footpaths Capital Subsidy Assumption is at Attachment C.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the revised capital expenditure programme, with any amendments, for inclusion in the 9 year plan 2025-34.

BACKGROUND

5 On 28 January 2025, Council approved the draft capital expenditure programme for the purposes of developing the 9 year plan 2025-34 (the 9 year plan) and consulting with the community (CNL/2025/009).

6 The approved draft capital expenditure of $1.889 billion was made up of:

· $1.099 billion for renewals – $867 million for replacing key three waters and transport infrastructure, building the resilience of these essential assets

· $719 million for new capital to improve levels of service

· $71 million for new three waters and transport infrastructure needed for the growth.

7 With the end of the current financial year approaching, it is timely to update Council on the current capital expenditure forecast and subsequent adjustments required to the capital expenditure, ahead of Council’s deliberations for the 9 year plan.

8 The current capital forecast is $150 million for 2024/25. A wide variety of factors mean that the programme is behind, but many of the changes detailed below reflect timing delays and factors that need to be considered. Staff will look to develop a forecasting methodology based on an approach taken by Queenstown Lakes District Council as part of the changes in capital expenditure reporting. This information will be taken to Council or the Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee.

DISCUSSION

9 Required changes to the capital expenditure are outlined and discussed below in the following four categories.

· Projects requiring budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26 (Year 1) of the 9 year plan

· Projects requiring budget movement from 2024/25 and rephasing over the 9 year plan

· Projects requiring budget adjustments (additional or reduced) in the 9 year plan

· Other changes

Projects requiring budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26 (Year 1) of the 9 year plan

10 Eight activity groups have projects with budgets that require funds to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26. This category is presented alphabetically by activity group. (Table 1).

Table 1. Eight activity groups with projects requiring budget movement

Activity Group

City Properties

Community Recreation

Creative & Cultural Vibrancy

Governance & Support Services

Resilient City

Roading & Footpaths

Three Waters – Stormwater

Waste Minimisation

City Properties

11 This activity group has six capital projects that require budgets, totalling $3.805 million, to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26 for the reasons described below (Table 2).

1) South Dunedin Library – $2.37 million. Timing adjustment to align with the latest work schedule

2) Edgar Centre – $200k due to schedule delays as a result of challenges with developing a scope of work with contractors. Procurement is now scheduled to start in June 2025

3) Main Switchboard Upgrade – $235k due to schedule delays as the project planning phase took longer than expected

4) DPAG Gallery Door Replacement – $185k due to schedule delays as a result of pausing the project during a review of the scope of work

5) Olveston House Renewal – $240k due to schedule delays as the resource consent process took longer than expected

6) Holding Assets Renewals - Sims building – $575k due to schedule delays as a result of the time incurred to obtain consent from the landowner to demolish the ‘extension’ to the Sims building. Demolition was required to enable better access to assess the bank. The scope of work and budget will be defined once the bank has been assessed. There will likely be a report on this matter for Council at an appropriate time.

Table 2. Projects under City Properties requiring budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000
1) South Dunedin Library	Library and building fitout	$19,900	$15,800	$2,370
2) Edgar Centre	Roof improvement work	$300	−	$200
3) Main Switchboard Upgrade	Overall: Asset Renewals	*$700	$465	$235
4) DPAG Gallery Door Replacement	Overall: Asset Renewals	*$250	$13	$185
5) Olveston House Renewal	Electrical Upgrade	$250	$32	$240
6) Holding Assets Renewals	Remediation and stabilisation of the Sims building site	$640	$65	$575
Total		$22,040	$16,375	$3,805

*The budget for the Main Switchboard Upgrade and DPAG Gallery Door Replacement is from the overall property asset renewals budget across all portfolios for 2024/25.

Community Recreation

12 This activity group has three capital projects that require budgets, totalling $565k, to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26 for the reasons described below (Table 3).

1) Moana Pool Renewal (Equipment) – $175k due to supply lead times not meeting the 2024/25 timelines. Delivery and installation will take place in 2025/26.

2) Cemetery Development Plan – $270k due to timing adjustment. Design work and procurement of physical works are underway in 2024/25. Physical works will be undertaken in 2025/26.

3) Recreation Facilities Improvements – Aramoana Carpark – $120k due to timing adjustment. Design work and consent have been completed. Procurement of physical works contract is underway in 2024/25. Physical works will take place in 2025/26.

Table 3. Projects under Community Recreation requiring budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000
1) Moana Pool Renewal (Equipment)	Renewals of diving boards and foyer turnstiles	$282	$16	$175
2) Cemetery Development Plan	Cemetery infrastructure	$500	$150	$270
3) Recreation Facilities Improvements – Aramoana Carpark	Recreation facilities improvements	$450	$330	$120
Total		$1,232	$496	$565

Creative and Cultural Vibrancy

13 This activity group has two projects that require budgets, totalling $524k, to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26 for the reasons described below (Table 4).

1) New Gallery Space - Theatrette – $464k due to supply lead time for AV equipment for Toitū Otago Settlers Museum

2) Library Books for South Dunedin Library – $60k due to timing of purchases and procurement along with delays to completion of the facility

Table 4. Projects under Creative and Cultural Vibrancy requiring budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000
1) New Gallery Space - Theatrette	Gallery renewal at Toitū Otago Settlers Museum	$711	$247	$464
2) Library Books for South Dunedin Library	Book purchases for South Dunedin Library	$600	$540	$60
Total		$1,311	$787	$524

Governance and Support Services

14 Business Information Services (BIS) in this group has one capital project that requires its budget, totalling $465k, to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26 for the reasons described below (Table 5).

1) IT Infrastructure Upgrades – $465k. The total BIS capital expenditure budget for 2024/25 is $3.325 million. The IT Infrastructure Upgrade was expected to cost $2.245 million and to be completed within 2024/25, utilising savings in other IT projects in 2024/25. However, due to resourcing constraints, this project will now be completed in 2025/26.

Table 5. Budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26 required for the IT Infrastructure Upgrades project

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000
1) Overall BIS capital budget	Network upgrades as part of the IT Managed Systems programme incl. cloud migration	$3,325	$2,116	$465
Total		$3,325	$2,116	$465

Resilient City

15 City Development in this activity group needs to move a budget of $25k from 2024/25 to 2025/26 for the ‘Street Trees and Furniture’ project for the reasons described below (Table 6).

1) Street Trees and Furniture – $25k due to timing delays with contractors and resourcing.

Table 6. Budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26 required for the Street Trees and Furniture project

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000
1) Street Trees and Furniture	Street trees and furniture for the upgrade of substantial streetscape upgrades within larger centre and minor streetscapes	$100	$75	$25
Total		$100	$75	$25

Roading and Footpaths

16 This activity group has five capital projects that require budgets, totalling $7.894 million, to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26 for the reasons described below (Table 7).

1) Central City Bath Street – $939k due to delays driven by complexity with 3 Waters works. The project is expected to complete in September/October 2025.

2) Dunedin Urban Cycleways - Tunnel Trail – $1.431 million. Contract has been tendered in 2024/25. Work is expected to take place in 2025/26

3) Coastal Plan – $1.184 million. Timing of programme has extended. This forms part of the initial $5.0 million of funding approved by Council in 2023/24

4) Central City Parking Management – $400k. Some work could not be completed within 2024/25 due to resourcing and procurement of an operating model for the License Plate Recognition (LPR) system. Delivery of an electric wayfinding system is expected in 2025/26.

5) Emergency Works – $3.94 million to continue and complete emergency response work that was unable to be completed in 2024/25

Table 7. Projects under Roading and Footpaths requiring budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000
1) Central City Bath Street	Reinstating surfaces with improved amenity value once 3W renewals are complete	$1,500	$561	$939
2) Dunedin Urban Cycleways - Tunnel Trail	Physical development of stage one of the Tunnels Trail from Gladstone Road to past the Chain Hills tunnel, as tendered and now contracted, incl. some design and potential land acquisition for future stages	$1,875	$444	$1,431
3) Coastal Plan	Portion of the Council approved $5m to protect the Kettle Park Landfill, ensuring continued protection to the public from landfill material through extensions of the sand filled geobags while long term coastal planning continues	$2,950	$1,609	$1,184
4) Central City Parking Management	Management of parking to ensure it meets the community’s requirements	$1,200	$132	$400
5) Emergency Works	Emergency works relating to the October 2024 rain event to reinstate the level of service to pre-rain event levels	−	$2,763	$3,940
Total		$7,525	$5,509	$7,894

Three Waters – Stormwater

17 This activity group has two capital projects that require budgets, totalling $2.9 million, to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26 for the reasons described below (Table 8).

1) Mosgiel Stormwater Pumpstations and Network – $1.0 million. Additional design work required for realignment to ensure proposed work can be within public land.

2) Renewals Supporting Growth – $1.9 million. A new stormwater main is required in Irvine Road. Physical works will be commenced in 2025/26.

Table 8. Projects under Three Waters – Stormwater requiring budget movement from 2024/25 to 2025/26

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000
1) Mosgiel Stormwater Pumpstations and Network	Improvement of stormwater pumpstations and network	$1,750	$682	$1,000
2) Renewals Supporting Growth	A new stormwater main installation	$2,015	$57	$1,900
Total		$3,765	$739	$2,900

Projects requiring budget movement from 2024/25 and rephasing over the 9 year plan

18 Four activity groups have projects that require budgets to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26 and to be subsequently rephased over the 9 year plan. This category is presented alphabetically by activity group (Table 9).

Table 9. Four activity groups requiring budget movement and rephasing over the 9 year plan

Activity Group

Community Recreation

Three Waters − Wastewater

Three Waters – Water Supply

Waste Minimisation

Community Recreation

19 ‘Moana Pool Redevelopment’ under this activity group requires a budget of $4.470 million to be moved from 2024/25 to 2026/27 for the reasons described below (Table 10).

1) Moana Pool Redevelopment – $4.470 million due to timing adjustment in line with the latest work schedule. All of the seismic strengthening work will now take place in 2026/27.

Table 10. Budget movement from 2024/25 and rephasing over the 9 year plan required for Moana Pool Redevelopment

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move	2026/27 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000	$000
1) Moana Pool Redevelopment	A major asset renewal to address ageing and poor facility conditions	$8,580	$3,699	−	$4,470
Total		$8,580	$3,699	−	$4,470

Three Waters – Wastewater

20 This activity group requires a budget of $1.5 million to be moved from 2024/25 to 2026/27 and subsequent rephasing within its capital programme.

1) Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Resilience – $1.5 million due to delays in programme establishment and getting a long-term contract up and running. The initial phase of building capacity and process, and challenging value for money from the contractor has meant that less physical works were delivered than envisaged. The establishment phase is now completed, and the contract is running smoothly and delivering in line with expectations.

Table 11. Budget movement required in 2025/26 between Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Resilience and Other Wastewater Renewals

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move	2026/27 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000	$000
1) Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Resilience	A range of asset improvements to the resilience of wastewater treatment plant, which complements emission reduction efforts	$8,707	$188	$1,500	-
2) Other Wastewater Renewals	Network renewals programme	$5,023	$12,985	($1,500)	$1,500
Total		$13,730	$13,146	−	$1,500

Three Waters – Water Supply

21 This activity group requires a budget of $4.5 million to be moved from 2024/25 to 2026/27 and subsequent rephasing (Table 12). This is to ensure deliverability within the wider Three Waters capital expenditure.

1) Water New Capital Other – $4.5 million due to delay in purchase of required land. This is now in progress and will be completed in 2025/26. Additionally, some large items of equipment which come from overseas have longer lead times than expected; therefore, some costs will be incurred later than expected.

Table 12. Budget movement required in 2025/26 between Water New Capital General and Other Water Renewals

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 amount to move	2026/27 amount to move
		$000	$000	$000	$000
1) Water New Capital General	Waikouaiti Water Treatment plant upgrade for improvements, compliance and to meet required level of service	$4,748	$117	$4,500	−
2) Other Water Renewals	Network renewals programme	$15,125	$15,800	($4,500)	$4,500
Total		$19,873	$15,917	−	$4,500

Waste Minimisation

22 This activity group has six capital projects that require budgets to be moved from 2024/25 to 2025/26 and subsequently to be rephased over the 9 year plan for the reasons described below (Table 13). The entire Waste Future programme has been rephased over the 9 year plan, and the project estimates have been updated. This has resulted in an overall reduction of $1.202 million.

1) Bulk Waste System – $925k increase. Delays in commencement of the Resource Recovery Park (RRP) construction has resulted in this budget being rephased over Years 1 to 3 of the 9 year plan

2) Organics Facility – $3.926 million increase. The 2024/25 budget of $3.013 million anticipated a significant deposit upon initial order for processing equipment. Payments will now be staged through production, installation and commissioning. Delivery to site is expected in May 2026.

3) Construction and Demolition Facility – $389k reduction due to delays in commencement of RRP construction. The facility construction is now aligned with construction of the Bulk Waste Transfer Station in FY26/27 and FY27/28.

4) Material Recovery Facility – $715k reduction. The FY24/25 budget of $13.466 million anticipated a significant deposit upon initial order for processing equipment. Payments will now be staged through production, installation, and commissioning. Delivery to is site expected in May 2026.

5) Glass Facility – $330k reduction due to decrease in the expected build costs after the design scope was re-defined

6) Resource Recovery Park Precinct – $4.619 million reduction. Delays in commencement of the RRP construction has resulted in this budget being rephased and revised over Years 1 to 3 of the 9 year plan.

Table 13. Projects under Waste Minimisation requiring budget movement from 2024/25 and rephasing over the 9 year plan

Project name	Project description	2024/25 budget	2024/25 full year forecast	2025/26 revised budget	2026/27 revised budget	2027/28 revised budget	Net change
		$000	$000	$000	$000	$000
1) Bulk Waste System	Establishment of a bulk waste transfer system at the Green Island site	−	$175	$500	$1,750	$5,000	$925
2) Organics Facility	Design and construction of an organic collection processing facility	$3,013	$1,643	$8,900	$2,416	−	$3,926
3) Construction and Demolition Facility	Design and construction of a dedicated construction and demolition waste sorting facility	$383	$44	$400	$2,200	$920	($389)
4) Material Recovery Facility	Design and construction of a mixed recycling material sorting facility	$13,466	$1,350	$21,550	$16,950	−	($715)
5) Glass Facility	Design and construction of glass collection storage bunkers	$860	$71	$2,525	$789	−	($330)
6) Resource Recovery Park Precinct	Provision of auxiliary buildings and civils infrastructure	$3,512	$435	$7,404	$4,177	$2,500	($4,619)
Total		$21,234	$3,718	$41,479	$28,482	$8,620	($1,202)

Projects requiring budget adjustments (additional or reduced) in the 9 year plan

23 Five activity groups have projects that require budget adjustments to the original budgets included in the 9 year plan (Table 14). This category is presented alphabetically by activity group.

Table 14. Five activity groups requiring budget adjustment in the 9 year plan

Activity Group

City Properties

Governance and Support Services

Resilient City

Three Waters – Stormwater

Three Waters – Water Supply

City Properties

24 There are two projects under this activity group that require additional budget in the 9 year plan, totalling $1.2 million, for the reasons described below (Table 15).

1) Municipal Chamber/Town Hall Restoration – $1.0 million additional. The project is nearing completion of discovery and planning for Stage One works. The main contractor has priced the work required to restore Stage One of the Municipal Chambers exterior. Negotiations with the main contractor have concluded, and final pricing is in the order of $2.7 million (including contingency). The budget has been updated to reflect this amount. Staff will bring an update report on this project to the Infrastructure Services Committee in June 2025.

2) Public Toilet Renewals – $200k additional. Funding for public toilet renewals for 2025/26 and 2026/27 to factor in any unscheduled renewals expenditure.

Table 15. Projects under City Properties requiring budget adjustments in the 9 year plan

Project name	Project description	2025/26 original budget	2025/26 revised budget	2026/27 revised budget	Net change
		$000	$000	$000	$000
1) Municipal Chamber/Town Hall Restoration	Heritage restoration and seismic investigation, the renewal of energy systems, a lighting upgrade programme	$1,600	$2,688	−	$1,000
2) Public Toilet Renewals	Public toilets maintenance, incl. replacing damaged/aged equipment	−	$100	$100	$200
Total		$1,600	$2,788	$100	$1,200

Governance and Support Services

25 This activity group has three projects that require adjustments to the original budgets included in the 9 year plan for the reasons described below. A total additional budget of $4.67 million is requested (Table 16).

1) DCC Digital Platform Upgrade – $30k reduction. The project is no longer required as a result of system changes.

2) Fleet Replacement – $300k reduction. The budget is no longer required as the heavy vehicle equipment will be leased.

3) New and Refreshed Internal IT Systems – $5.0 million additional. Budget for the upgrade of finance and payroll systems is needed, as the current platforms hinder efficiency and have limited integration capabilities. A budget of $5.0 million will be spread over the first three financial years of the 9 year plan, as follows:

· $1.0 million in 2025/26 (Year 1)

· $2.0 million in 2026/27 (Year 2) and 2027/28 (Year 3).

Table 16. Projects under Governance and Support Services requiring budget adjustments in the 9 year plan

Project name	Project description	2025/26 original budget	2025/26 revised budget	2026/27 revised budget	2027/28 revised budget	Net change
		$000	$000	$000	$000	$000
1) DCC Digital Platform Upgrade	Renewals of DCC’s digital platform	$30	−	−	−	($30)
2) Fleet Replacement	Replacement of heavy vehicle equipment	$300	−	−	−	($300)
3) New and Refreshed Internal IT Systems	Provision for upgrades to current finance and payroll systems	−	$1,000	$2,000	$2,000	$5,000
Total		$330	$1,000	$2,000	$2,000	$4,670

Resilient City

26 Civil Defence in this activity group has one project that requires an additional budget of $50k in 2025/26 (Table 17).

1) Civil Defence: Plant Equipment – $50k additional due to timing and needs assessment of equipment

Table 17. Budget adjustments in the 9 year plan

Project name	Project description	2025/26 original budget	2025/26 revised budget	2026/27 revised budget	2027/28 revised budget	Net change
		$000	$000	$000	$000	$000
1) Civil Defence: Plant Equipment	Plant Equipment / Generators for community boards	−	$50	−	−	$50
Total		−	$50	−	−	$50

Three Waters – Water Supply

27 There is one project under this activity group that requires budget to be added to the first three years of the 9 year plan for the reasons described below (Table 18).

1) Port Chalmers Water Supply – $5.116 million. A significant landslip during the October 2024 rainfall event necessitated a reconsideration of alignment options, leading to a proposed realignment that, while increasing the estimated budget, aims for greater stability and ease of future maintenance.

Table 18. Projects under Three Waters – Water Supply requiring budget adjustments in the 9 year plan

Project name	Project description	2025/26 original budget	2025/26 revised budget	2026/27 revised budget	2027/28 revised budget	Net change
		$000	$000	$000	$000	$000
1) Port Chalmers Water Supply	Replacement of Port Chalmers water supply infrastructure (treatment plant, reservoirs and existing watermain from Dunedin), with an upsized main from Dunedin to accommodate year-round demand	−	$961	$2,502	$1,653	$5,116
Total		−	$961	$2,502	$1,653	$5,116

Three Waters – Stormwater

28 This activity group has one project that requires budget, totalling $750k, to be added to 2025/26 of the 9 year plan for the reasons described below (Table 19).

1) Bath Street – Some post-construction building repair works will be required. Reinstatement of the building and carpark area will be completed after all other physical works are complete.

Table 19. Projects under Three Waters – Stormwater requiring budget adjustments in the 9 year plan

Project name	Project description	2025/26 original budget	2025/26 revised budget	Net Change
		$000	$000	$000
1) Bath Street	Potential requirements of some post-construction building repair works and reinstatements upon completion of Transport works	−	$750	$750
Total		−	$750	$ 750

Other changes

City Properties

29 The ‘Civic Centre Upgrade’ project under this activity group requires a budget adjustment of $600k to be moved to 2025/26 for the reasons described below (Table 20).

1) Civic Centre Upgrade – $600k due to a delay in the project. The project still requires a total budget of $23.4 million, as revised in January 2025, including operating and capital expenditure. In January 2025, the estimated expenditure on the project was expected to be $20 million by 30 June 2025. This is now estimated to be $19.4 million (for operating and capital expenditure); therefore, $600k will need to be added to the 2025/26 budget.

Table 20. Budget adjustment required for Civic Centre Upgrade project for 2025/25 of the 9 year plan

Project name	Project description	2025/26 original budget	2025/26 revised budget	Net Change
		$000	$000	$000
1) Civic Centre Upgrade	Renewals of roof membrane and weathertightness, asbestos removal, fire and safety compliance improvement, accessibility improvement, interior refresh, LED lighting, and energy system	$3,400	$4,000	$600
Total		$3,400	$4,000	$600

Three Waters – Wastewater

30 The budget classification has been updated for the ‘Main Interceptor Sewer Upgrade’ project between new capital and renewals to reflect the correct budget allocation. The updated 9 year total budget for the project is detailed in Table 21. There are no overall budget changes.

1) Main Interceptor Sewer Upgrade – the project comprises the renewal of a critical asset or the rehabilitation of a major sewer line between Anzac Avenue and Musselburgh pump station to reduce potential for environmental/public health hazard and resolve constraints on growth in CBD and North Dunedin.

Table 21. Budget classification update for the Main Interceptor Sewer Update project under Three Waters – Wastewater

Expenditure type	Annual Plan 24/25	Y1 25/26	Y2 26/27	Y3 27/28	Y4 28/29	Y5 29/30	Y6 30/31	Y7 31/32	Y8 32/33	Y9 33/34	9 Year Total
	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000
New Capital	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	$1,353	$1,655	$1,686	$4,694
Renewal	–	–	–	–	$500	$1,000	$1,000	$3,884	$4,660	$4,660	$15,704
Total	–	–	–	–	$500	$1,000	$1,000	$5,237	$6,315	$6,346	$20,398

OPTIONS

31 Specific options have not been provided in this report. Given the scale and scope of the capital expenditure programme, there will be a high level of interest from Councillors around projects that require changes. Council may wish to consider the budget changes requested in this report in the context of funding requests received through the 9 year plan public consultation.

Debt

· Any changes to the capital expenditure will impact the level of debt funding required.

Rates

· Any changes to the capital expenditure will impact the level of operational expenditure, which is funded by rates.

Zero carbon

· Zero Carbon considerations are discussed in a separate report in this agenda.

NEXT STEPS

32 The decision of Council will be included in the 9 year plan 2024-35.

Signatories

Author:

Hayden McAuliffe - Financial Services Manager

Authoriser:

Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	2025-34 Revised Capital Expenditure Programme	183
⇩b	2025-34 Capital Expenditure Summary of Changes	194
⇩c	2025-34 Roading and Footpaths Capital Subsidy Assumption	195

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and promotes the social, economic, environmental and 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 activity groups contribute to the delivery of all of the objectives and priorities of the strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

The adoption of Te Taki Haruru - Māori Strategic Framework signals Council’s commitment to mana whenua and to its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Mana whenua and Māori have had an opportunity to engage through the 9 year plan consultation process.

Sustainability

Major issues and implications for sustainability are discussed and considered in the Infrastructure Strategy, and financial resilience is discussed in the Financial Strategy.

Zero carbon

Zero carbon impacts of the capital budge programme are discussed in a separate report in the agenda.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report provides a revised capital expenditure for each activity group, for inclusion in the 9 year plan 2025-34.

Financial considerations

Financial considerations are detailed in the report.

Significance

The draft capital expenditure programme is considered significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and has been consulted on with the community, as part of the 9 year plan 2025-34. Variations to budgets as discussed in this report are not considered significant in terms of the policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement in developing the revised capital expenditure programme for the activity groups.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across the DCC have been involved in the updating of the capital expenditure programme.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards have been consulted on the 9 year plan 2025-34.

Council

26 May 2025

Zero Carbon 9 year plan update - 2025-2034

Department: Zero Carbon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on city and DCC emissions modelling. It also provides information on:

a) alignment with OAG advice,

b) submissions relating to Zero Carbon investment packages, and

c) updates to Zero Carbon investment options.

2 Estimated modelled emissions by 2030 have changed since the Zero Carbon Plan and the DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan (EMRP) were adopted, due to changes in national context and improved understanding of some emissions sources.

3 Updated modelling based on these changes indicates that by 2030/31:

a) the ‘net-zero’ element of the city target is very unlikely to be achieved

b) the biogenic methane element of the target is likely to be achieved, and

c) the DCC organisational target is also anticipated to be achieved.

4 Despite changes in the 2030/31 modelling position there is no change to the Zero Carbon Plan key shifts required for the city reduce emissions, and the DCC action areas to support those shifts. Priority action areas remain the same. Despite national headwinds, there is some positive momentum locally and Dunedin also remains comparatively well-placed to reduce gross emissions.

5 Staff are giving effect to the most recent Office of the Auditor General (OAG) climate change guidance in line with the approach noted by Council in November 2025. Audit New Zealand’s opinion on the draft 9 year plan and consultation documents included no emphasis of matters relating to climate change. Adoption of an additional Level of Service (LoS) relating to city emissions may further improve alignment with OAG guidance.

6 During the draft 9 year plan consultation, a total of 76 submissions mentioned Zero Carbon or climate change mitigation. This included 49 individual submissions, 26 submissions from organisations/businesses/community boards, and 1 cover submission that included 150 individual submissions as attachments. Many of these submissions supported greater investment in Zero Carbon packages. Infrastructure and network improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport were the most commonly mentioned topic in submissions relating to Zero Carbon.

7 Since Zero Carbon investment packages were presented to Council on 28 January 2025, there have been some updates to the cost and/or scope of five investment options. This report presents updated descriptions and costings of Zero Carbon investment packages, reflecting these changes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Zero Carbon 9 year plan update, including information about:

i) city and DCC emissions modelling,

ii) alignment with OAG climate change advice,

iii) submissions relating to Zero Carbon investment packages, and

iv) updates to Zero Carbon investment options and packages.

b) Considers inclusion of an additional Level of Service relating to city emissions

c) Notes that staff will further update modelling and provide advice on city emissions target options following completion of the 2024/25 Dunedin emissions inventory.

BACKGROUND

The DCC is seeking to manage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at both the city and DCC scale

8 The DCC is seeking to manage and reduce emissions at two scales, as directed by the Zero Carbon Policy: city (Dunedin emissions) and organisational (DCC emissions). Decisions on the 9 year plan have implications for emissions at both scales.

9 The DCC’s Zero Carbon Policy provides that all DCC activities, including renewals, should seek to minimise emissions and contribute to achieving both city-wide and DCC emissions reduction targets.

10 At the DCC scale, the target is to reduce emissions 42% from a 2018/19 baseline by 2030/31. The organisation is so far tracking well towards this target, having achieved a 29.7% reduction from the baseline year in 2023/24.

11 At the city scale, the DCC has adopted a ‘Zero Carbon 2030’ city emissions reduction target, which is in two parts:

· net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases other than biogenic methane by 2030, and

· 24% to 47% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030.

12 Net zero carbon means that any greenhouse gases (excluding biogenic methane) emitted into the atmosphere in Dunedin are in balance with the amount of carbon absorbed out of the atmosphere by trees, also known as sequestration. It can be visualised as a balanced seesaw:

The Zero Carbon Plan mapped out a path to achieve the city’s target

13 In September 2023, Council adopted an emissions reduction plan for Dunedin: The Zero Carbon Plan 2030. The Zero Carbon Plan set out a pathway to achieve the city’s target, building on trends already underway. At last count, Dunedin’s emissions were tracking down – between 2018/19 and 2021/22, Dunedin’s gross emissions decreased by 9%. The next city footprint is due to be completed later in 2025.

14 The 2023 modelling that underpinned the Zero Carbon Plan built in the context at the time - emissions reduction targets and commitments made by government and other entities, as well as planned DCC actions. It concluded that achieving the city’s targets would require a wide range of government, community, and business stakeholders to pull all available levers as hard as credibly possible.

15 2023 modelling identified that the following reductions (relative to 2018/19) would be required to achieve ‘net zero’ for Dunedin (excluding biogenic methane):

16 2023

modelling estimated the following reductions (relative to 2018/19) would be required to achieve the biogenic methane target by 2030:

The Zero Carbon Plan identified that upfront investment would be required to achieve targets

17 As well as presenting a modelled path to ‘net zero’, the Zero Carbon Plan sets out the overall shifts Dunedin will need to make as a city to become a Zero Carbon city.

18 It also identifies the DCC’s roles to support the transition to zero carbon, setting out ‘action areas’ for the DCC prioritised by emissions reduction potential. It recognises that many actions required to reduce emissions will reduce costs in the medium term, but there will be upfront costs especially for owners of assets/infrastructure.

19 While no equivalent figures are available for Dunedin, a report by Deloitte estimates that inadequate climate action could cost the New Zealand economy $4.4 billion by 2050, with losses becoming exponentially worse after that. On the other hand, decisive climate action could deliver $64 billion to New Zealand’s economy by 2050.

20 Many actions also have co-benefits for the community and city, such as reducing the costs of living or doing business, health benefits, and community cohesion.

Development of Zero Carbon investment packages was requested by Council

21 In September 2023, Council considered an indicative implementation plan and possible investment scenarios for the Zero Carbon Plan and resolved:

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

f) Requests further development of the high investment option for the Zero Carbon Implementation plan (as the preferred option) in time for consideration as part of the Draft Long Term Plan 2024-34, with medium investment as the alternative option.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley and Steve Walker (9).

Against: Crs Bill Acklin, Cherry Lucas, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Jules Radich (5).

Abstained: Cr Andrew Whiley (1).

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5

Motion carried (CNL/2023/214)

Establishment of the Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Group

22 On 27 August 2024, Council resolved to establish a Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Group, as follows:

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

a) Adopts the Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel Terms of Reference with agreed amendments to the frequency of reporting and meetings and membership.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/156) with Cr David Benson-Pope recording his vote against

Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel advice informed Zero Carbon investment package development

23 In November 2024, the Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel provided advice to inform development of Zero Carbon investment packages, as follows:

Guidance on High and Medium investment packages

a) Original ‘High’ investment scenario definition to be retained (undertaking all DCC actions at the highest level deemed feasible and deliverable over the period to 2030), aligning as closely as possible with what is required to achieve the Zero Carbon target.

b) Any actions not included due to being deemed not feasible/deliverable, also be appended.

c) ‘Medium’ investment scenario to be a subset of high priority options, with an associated statement on likelihood of emissions reduction targets being achieved. Quantum / level of investment to be decided by Council.

Guidance on prioritisation

a) Carbon removal options to be workshopped with Council

b) Prioritisation of actions should be based on emissions reduction potential. Highest priority should be actions that represent ‘greatest emissions reduction potential per dollar spend’.

c) Relative importance of other considerations as follows:

i) Seeking opportunities to build on other existing DCC investment;

ii) Seeking opportunities for DCC to act as a catalyst by building on other available resources or momentum;

iii) Alignment with DCC’s strategic framework; and

iv) Ensuring DCC is set up to scale up action quickly in the future, in response to changes or opportunities.

d) Co-benefits should also be assessed for each action, as supporting information.

Guidance on content:

a) Package development assessments to include consideration of:

i) Potential 100% local share funding for transport ‘ready to deliver’ walking and cycling projects.

ii) Potential funding for ORC-led projects that may improve public transport outcomes.

24 Further detail on the process for developing the Zero Carbon Plan High and Medium investment options was provided in the January 28 2025 Council report ‘Zero Carbon Investment Packages’.

Zero Carbon investment packages were considered by Council in January 2025

25 The Zero Carbon High and Medium investment packages were considered by Council on January 28 2025, as part of decisions on the draft 9 year plan.

26 The High package included a total of $101.17 million capital expenditure and $9.00 million operating expenditure plus ongoing interest and depreciation costs. The Medium package included a total of $35.54 million capital expenditure and $5.54 million operating expenditure plus ongoing interest and depreciation costs.

27 The report noted that at the city scale, the packages would support emissions reduction and provide other benefits for the community. However, preliminary indications from modelling were that, in the updated context, it was unlikely either package would bring about the degree of change at the pace required to achieve the city’s net zero 2030 target.

28 At the DCC scale, based on modelling completed in 2023/24, it was considered possible that the DCC’s organisational target could be achieved with projects that were in draft budgets alone. Investment in High and Medium packages would increase the probability of this target being achieved.

29 Council resolved as follows:

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

c) Decides not to include either high or medium options in the Draft 9 year plan because all the papers considered by Council as part of the 9 year plan had Zero carbon assessments.

d) Requests an update report from the CEO at the 9 year plan 2025-2034 deliberations meeting in May 2025. The report is to include:

1. Modelling of the Zero Carbon impacts of the draft budget

2. Alignment of the Council’s position and OAG advice

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (8).

Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley and Steve Walker (7).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 8 votes to 7

Motion carried (CNL/2025/046)

Giving effect to recent climate-related Office of the Auditor General guidance

30 On 5 November 2024, the OAG released a report auditing the performance of four councils’ climate work. The report included five recommendations for councils, emphasising the need for clarity and transparency with the public in climate-related objective setting and progress monitoring/reporting.

31 A report to 25 November 2024 Council set out the proposed DCC approach to align with OAG guidance through the Zero Carbon work programme and 9 year plan, as set out below:

OAG Recommendation for Councils

Proposed November 2024 approach for 9 Year Plan and/or Zero Carbon work programme

Take opportunities to collaborate with and assist each other to understand the current and likely impacts of a changing climate on their infrastructure and communities.

Collaboration is already a key part of the existing Zero Carbon work programme. Existing collaborative relationships include: collaborating with the Otago Regional Council, participation in the Otago and nationwide climate officers groups, the Zero Carbon Alliance, and working alongside DCHL.

Make clear in climate strategies:

- what their climate-related objectives are,

- how they intend to achieve those objectives,

- how they will use their strategies to set priorities, and

- how they will measure and report on progress in implementing their strategies.

Zero Carbon Policy, Zero Carbon Plan, and DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan (EMRP) set clear objectives.

The implementation of the Zero Carbon Plan and EMRP will be finalised through 9 Year Plan investment decisions.

A monitoring and reporting framework for implementation will then be developed.

Strengthen the use of performance measures that reflect climate-related strategic objectives and priorities.

Report publicly on progress with their climate change strategies and work programmes, to support accountability and so communities are well-informed, engaged, and supportive.

The Zero Carbon team has provided advice relating to ways climate-related goals and targets can be reflected in levels of service and associated performance measures.

A monitoring and reporting framework for implementation will be developed following finalisation of the Zero Carbon Implementation Plan (including EMRP actions).

Clearly set out how climate-related activities will be governed and ensure that staff understand what information the relevant governance body needs to govern effectively.

A Zero Carbon Advisory Panel has recently been established. Governance of the work programme sits with Council and the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee.

For the 9 Year Plan, in line with the Zero Carbon Policy 2022, all proposed capital expenditure and all new proposed operating expenditure is being assessed for potential emissions impact.

A Zero Carbon impact statement section will be added to Council report templates, to provide Councillors with information about the emissions impact of decisions. Guidance for staff has also been prepared.

32 The report also noted these recommendations apply to climate change adaptation work, and will be considered in the context of the DCC’s citywide climate resilience planning once that commences.

33 Council resolved to note this report (CNL/2024/221).

DISCUSSION

Updated modelling has been undertaken for both city and DCC emissions

34 Modelling for both city and DCC emissions has been updated for the 2025 context. Early-stage indications from updated modelling were included in the report to Council on 28 January 2025. An overview of the preliminary updated modelling was then presented in a Council workshop on 14 April 2025. This report provides finalised peer-reviewed results.

35 The following assumptions/limitations for the modelling should be noted:

· Modelling is based on current central government policy settings – these are key drivers of the model and are subject to change, particularly following elections.

· Modelling reflects the draft 9 year plan 2025-34 to the extent possible at the scale the model operates. Assumptions have been made around what might be achieved by the projects in the draft plan. More granular modelling of the impact of individual projects is not possible.

· Dunedin’s most recent emissions inventory (2021/22) has been built into the modelling. An updated city inventory using 2024/25 data, anticipated to be complete in late 2025, will provide a stronger basis for projections.

Updated city emissions modelling reflects significant changes in national context, and improved modelling inputs

36 The Zero Carbon Plan sets out how modelled reductions could be achieved through interrelated changes and actions, grouped into five chapters: resource use and waste; transport and urban form; buildings, energy and industry; forestry, land use and agriculture; and communities and economies.

37 Since 2023 there have been changes in context across all five Zero Carbon Plan chapters. Primarily these changes relate to significant shifts in central government policy following the 2023 election. In addition, DCC modelling has incorporated improved and/or more granular data/information, and there is progress and momentum in local emissions-related partnerships and some DCC-led projects.

38 Anticipated emissions for 2030 are the same or higher than when previously modelled in 2023. Changes in the areas of transport, energy, and forestry (carbon removals/sequestration) have resulted in higher emissions modelled for 2030 under the updated modelling:

a) On-road transport emissions in 2030 are now modelled to be between 90,000 to 130,000tCO2e higher than when modelled in 2023, primarily due to shifts in central government policy.

b) Marine emissions (including cruise) in 2030 are now modelled to be approximately 70,000tCO2e higher than when modelled in 2023, due to shore power at Port Chalmers being ruled out as a near-term possibility, and the integration of emissions from cruise ships in modelling.

c) Electricity emissions in 2030 are now modelled to be approximately 12,000tCO2e higher, primarily due to shifts in central government policy.

d) Forestry is projected to absorb 200,000tCO2 less in 2030 than was modelled in 2023, due to more detailed modelling using harvest/planting intentions of major foresters, and projected land use change from sheep/beef farming to forestry showing significantly lower forecast sequestration.

39 Contextual changes since 2023 and their impact on modelled emissions are outlined in full in Attachment A. A full summary of city emissions modelling changes since the 2023 Zero Carbon Plan modelling is also included, as Attachment B.

Implications of updated modelling for the ‘net zero’ part of Dunedin’s target

40 Taken together, the modelling updates have implications for the projected feasibility of Dunedin’s 2030 emissions reduction target.

41 For the 2025 modelling update, two emissions scenarios for the ‘net zero carbon’ element of the Dunedin city target have been modelled, through to 2035:

· A BAU scenario, which broadly follows national level trajectories included in modelling underpinning the Second National Emissions Reduction Plan (2026-2030)

· An accelerated ambition scenario: Achievement of this scenario would require some changes in central government policy (but not complete reversal of current positions), and additional local investment (i.e. above the level of investment in draft 9 year plan budgets).

42 Neither scenario achieves ‘net zero’ of all gases other than biogenic methane either by 2030 or by 2035:

a) The BAU scenario estimates net emissions of 410,000tCO2e by 2030/31. This is attributable to projected gross emissions being approximately 210,000tCO2e higher than previously modelled in 2023, and carbon sequestration absorbing 200,000tCO2 less than was modelled in 2023.

b) The BAU scenario estimates net emissions of 229,000tCO2e by 2035/36, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Dunedin city emissions projections under the modelled ‘BAU scenario’ (2025 modelling update)

c) The accelerated ambition scenario estimates net emissions of 372,000tCO2e by 2030/31. This is attributable to gross emissions being approximately 172,000tCO2e higher than previously modelled in 2023, and carbon sequestration absorbing 200,000tCO2 less than was modelled in 2023.

d) The accelerated ambition scenario estimates net emissions of 170,000tCO2e by 2035/36, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Dunedin city emissions projections under the modelled ‘Accelerated Ambition scenario’ (2025 modelling update)

Implications of updated modelling for the ‘biogenic methane’ part of Dunedin’s target

43 For the 2025 modelling, there is little to no change in the biogenic methane emissions for agriculture and waste. Dunedin is still anticipated to meet the 2030 target of a 10% reduction in biogenic methane.

Implications of the updated modelling for Zero Carbon Plan delivery

44 The Zero Carbon Plan’s key shifts remain unchanged despite the contextual changes since the Plan was adopted, and the resulting increase in projected emissions for 2030. To become a city with ‘net zero emissions’ at any stage (or indeed to reduce emissions in line with any target), Dunedin will still need to take the same steps to reduce emissions. Modelling reconfirms that, in particular, unlocking shifts in transport is fundamental to achieving ‘net zero carbon’.

45 Priority action areas for DCC also remain the same. This was reflected in the Zero Carbon investment packages presented for Council consideration in January 2025. Action areas that are likely to have a high or very high emissions reduction potential are:

46 Despite headwinds, Dunedin is still comparatively well placed to tackle the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

· Strong partnerships in place with major institutions/employers

· Significant growth in public transport patronage (outperforming other centres of a similar size and bucking national trends)[1]

· About double the national average for walking to work or education, and recent growth in cycle mode share[2]

· Urban densification in inner city continuing

· Large land area/significant forest cover

· Phasing down coal and gas well underway

· Reducing waste emissions underway

· Growing uptake in rooftop solar

· The cost of electric vehicles, solar panels, hot water heat pumps, and other technologies continues to decline.

Updated DCC emissions modelling suggests DCC remains on track for its organisational target

47 Since DCC’s organisational emissions were modelled in 2023/24:

a) waste to landfill emissions are tracking significantly better than expected

b) wastewater treatment emissions are slightly higher since introducing real time data reporting, and

c) the scope of some stationary energy decarbonisation projects is smaller than originally anticipated.

48 While this has changed the degree to which various emissions sources will reduce, 2025 modelling (which takes into account projects in the draft 9 year plan) suggests the DCC is still on track to meet the 2030/31 target to reduce gross emissions by 42% against a 2018/19 baseline.

49 Some changes to the EMRP will be required to reflect the relative mix of projects in the draft 9 year plan, once finalised.

Update on alignment with OAG guidance

50 Staff have given effect to OAG guidance in line with the proposed approach noted by Council, as follows:

a) Collaboration with key partners has continued as part of business as usual.

b) The Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel has continued to meet to provide advice to staff, and six month updates on Zero Carbon Plan and EMRP progress are being reported through to SPEC or Council on a six monthly basis.

c) A Zero Carbon impact statement section is now integrated into standard reporting processes.

d) Staff assessed all proposed 9 year plan capital expenditure for potential emissions impact. This was summarised in a report presented to Council on 28 January 2025. The full assessment, updated to reflect the draft capital programme as at May 2025, is appended to this report as Attachment C.

e) On 10 December 2024, Council adopted Levels of Service for inclusion in the draft 9 year plan, including a specific Level of Service for DCC emissions (CNL/2024/245).

f) On 28 January 2025, Council received Zero Carbon advice on a potential additional Level of Service relating to city-wide emissions. The Council resolution did not address these options.

51 Audit New Zealand has provided an opinion on the draft 9 year plan and consultation documents, with no emphasis of matters relating to climate change.

52 Adoption of an additional Level of Service relating to city emissions may further improve alignment with OAG guidance.

53 As city emissions are measured and reported triennially, it is not possible to report an annual city emissions count. Two alternative options are set out below:

LoS	Performance measure	Target
LoS A: The DCC implements actions to reduce Dunedin’s emissions	Zero Carbon Plan implementation progresses as scheduled	80% of 9 year plan projects assessed as ‘core’ and ‘contributing’ to Zero Carbon Plan outcomes are on track to be delivered as anticipated by the 9 year plan.
LoS B: The DCC reports on actions to reduce Dunedin’s emissions	Progress on Zero Carbon Plan implementation is publicly reported	An annual Zero Carbon Plan update report is published.

Summary of 9 year plan submissions relevant to the Zero Carbon investment packages

54 During the draft 9 Year Plan consultation, a total of 76 submissions mentioned Zero Carbon or climate change mitigation. This included 49 individual submissions, 26 group submissions from organisations/businesses/community boards, and 1 cover submission that itself included 150 individual submissions as attachments.

55 37 submissions made a direct reference to Zero Carbon investment packages. All were in support of greater investment, including the cover submission that attached 150 individual submissions. Within the cover submission, 140 individual submissions were in support of the high investment package, and 10 individual submissions were in support of the medium investment package.

56 Infrastructure and network improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport were the most mentioned topics within submissions that related to Zero Carbon. More generally across all submissions received, 38 were received on cycling, 34 (89%) of which were generally in support of investment in cycleway infrastructure.

57 Submitters identified several specific locations for walking and cycling infrastructure improvements (many of which are directly addressed in Zero Carbon investment packages). These included Albany St, Princes St, Queens Dr, the hill suburbs, the Shore St/Portsmouth Dr/Portobello Rd intersection, inner city, North Dunedin, the tertiary precinct, and South Dunedin. Submissions also mentioned the need for walking and cycling infrastructure improvements near schools, neighbourhood centres and state highways.

58 The Dunedin Tunnels Trail (included in the Zero Carbon high investment package) was one of the most mentioned topics across all submissions received, with a total of 124 submissions. Within those, the vast majority (98%) were in support of the project.

59 Other key themes in draft 9 Year Plan submissions that related to content of the draft Zero Carbon investment packages include: transition to low-carbon public transport fleet; walkable and cyclable neighbourhoods; establishment of a car share scheme; Centres Upgrade programme transport improvements; City-to-Waterfront bridge; energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades and replacements for municipal buildings and public spaces; supporting place-based community groups; education and empowerment of local communities; native planting and planning for improved biodiversity; and sustainable tourism.

Changes in Zero Carbon investment options

60 Within the Zero Carbon investment packages presented to Council in January 2025, each investment option was separately scoped and costed (including potential investment range, for options that were scalable). The scope and cost of options was based on best available information at the time.

61 Since January there have been updates to five investment options:

a) NT1 Agricultural innovation project: costs and project description amended to reflect refined scope following completion of early work

b) NT4 Funding native trees to expand volunteer-based tree planting on DCC land: scope reduced to reflect refined estimate of volunteer capacity

c) NT5 Energy efficiency improvements for existing homes: phasing of costs amended to reflect refined start-up costs

d) NT6 Green and Blue Networks Plan with DCC sequestration opportunities: costs and project description have been amended to reflect refined costing

e) T18 Dunedin Tunnels Trail: project description amended to clarify that scope includes Flower St extension, and to include an additional phasing option

62 Information on Zero Carbon investment packages has been updated to reflect these changes:

a) Summary of High and Medium investment packages (May 2025) (Attachment D),

b) Detailed descriptions of Zero Carbon investment options (May 2025) (Attachment E)

c) Key projects not included in investment packages (May 2025) (Attachment F)

63 The updated High package includes a total of $101.17 million capital expenditure and $8.75 million operating expenditure plus ongoing interest and depreciation costs. The Medium package included a total of $35.54 million capital expenditure and $4.98 million operating expenditure plus ongoing interest and depreciation costs.

64 Attachment G provides a visual summary of individual investment options, the way these relate to the Zero Carbon Plan key shifts, DCC action areas, outcomes sought, and the High and Medium packages themselves.

65 Both packages still include projects to:

· progress a collaborative agricultural innovation project;

· support and invest in communities to transition and reduce their emissions;

· support active and public transport modes through infrastructure improvements, linking key gaps in the cycleway network, supporting workplaces to implement workplace travel interventions, and central city bike parking facilities;

· implement car share;

· support schools and students with cycling infrastructure and skills

· increase carbon removals by growing the current number of native trees DCC provides to meet volunteers’ demand, and undertake work to identify high priority areas in the city to improve biodiversity and increase sequestration; and

· decarbonise and improve the energy efficiency of additional DCC buildings.

66 The Medium package does not include several initiatives in the High package: decarbonising DCC buildings; the Dunedin Tunnels Trail; improvements to the Shore Street/Portsmouth Drive intersection; the City to Waterfront bridge; and centres upgrades – transport investment.

67 Areas with reduced investment in the Medium package included: cycle skills training for schools; community-led emissions reduction initiatives; tree planting on DCC land; safer schools streets in South Dunedin; and transport improvements for the Town Belt, and between the hill suburbs and central city.

OPTIONS

Option One – Include new city emissions LoS A (Recommended Option)

Impact assessment

68 Under this option, LoS A from Table 1 would be incorporated as a new LoS in the 9 year plan:

LoS A	Performance measure	Target
The DCC implements actions to reduce Dunedin’s emissions	Zero Carbon Plan implementation progresses as scheduled	80% of 9 year plan projects assessed as ‘core’ and ‘contributing’ to Zero Carbon Plan outcomes are on track to be delivered as anticipated by the 9 year plan.

Debt

· There are no impacts on debt.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· This option would support transparent reporting of Zero Carbon Plan progress, and of the three options presented is most likely to encourage and support organisational activity that delivers city/DCC emissions reduction.

Advantages

· Improved transparency and clear direction regarding public reporting on progress on the Zero Carbon Plan

· Improved alignment with OAG guidance

· Likely to encourage organisational activity that delivers city/DCC emissions reduction

Disadvantages

· None identified

Option Two – Include new city emissions LoS B

Impact assessment

69 Under this option, LoS B from Table 1 would be incorporated as a new LoS in the 9 year plan:

LoS B	Performance measure	Target
The DCC reports on actions to reduce Dunedin’s emissions	Progress on Zero Carbon Plan implementation is publicly reported	An annual Zero Carbon Plan update report is published.

Debt

· There are no impacts on debt.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· This option would support transparent reporting of Zero Carbon Plan progress, and may encourage organisational activity that delivers city/DCC emissions reduction

Advantages

· Improved transparency and clear direction regarding public reporting on progress on the Zero Carbon Plan

· Improved alignment with OAG guidance

· May encourage organisational activity that delivers city/DCC emissions reduction

Disadvantages

· Relative to Option 1, measure is less informative.

Option Three – No additional LoS relating to city emissions (Status Quo)

Impact assessment

70 Under this option, no additional LoS relating to city emissions would be included in the 9 year plan.

Debt

· There are no impacts on debt.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· Of the three options presented, this is least likely to incentivise or support organisational efforts to reduce city/DCC emissions.

Advantages

· None identified

Disadvantages

· Continued lack of public commitment to reporting on Zero Carbon Plan progress

· Of the three options presented, this aligns least well with OAG guidance

NEXT STEPS

City emissions measurement, modelling and targets

71 An updated city-wide emissions footprint for Dunedin up to the end of 2024/25 will be calculated in the second half of 2025. This will provide detailed information on how Dunedin is tracking and provide a further basis for updated emissions projections.

72 Staff will make further updates to modelling and provide Council with advice on target options following completion of the 2024/25 Dunedin emissions inventory.

Zero Carbon Plan and EMRP implementation

73 Council’s decisions on the 9 year plan will also be incorporated into a draft Zero Carbon implementation plan for 2025/26. This will be presented to Council in July.

74 9 year plan decisions will also be reflected in an updated DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan, which will then be progressed and reported as part of BAU.

Alignment with OAG climate change guidance

75 Staff will continue to implement the approach to aligning with OAG advice that was noted by Council in November 2024.

76 Staff will also give effect to the decision of Council on the city emissions LoS options set out in this report.

77 Any future OAG advice relating to climate change will be reviewed for implications for the DCC.

Signatories

Author:

Sarah Mitchell - Senior Policy Analyst - Zero Carbon

Rory McLean - Senior Policy Analyst - Zero Carbon

Jinty MacTavish - Manager - Zero Carbon

Authoriser:

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇨a	Attachment A - Contextual changes since 2023 and their impact on modelled emissions (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨b	Attachment B - Summary of city emissions modelling changes since 2023 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨c	Attachment C - Draft 9 year plan capital expenditure Zero Carbon alignment assessment (May 2025) (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨d	Attachment D - Summary of Zero Carbon High and Medium investment packages (May 2025) (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨e	Attachment E - Detailed descriptions of Zero Carbon investment options (May 2025) (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨f	Attachment F - Key projects not included in Zero Carbon investment packages (May 2025) (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨g	Attachment G - Visual summary of Zero Carbon investment options (May 2025) (Under Separate Cover 1)

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report provides an update regarding Zero Carbon activities that are relevant to the 9 year plan. Efforts to reduce city and DCC emissions promote 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	✔	☐	☐

Efforts to reduce city and DCC emissions align with almost all DCC strategies, while giving effect to the Zero Carbon Policy, Zero Carbon Plan, and DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan.

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.

For the updated Zero Carbon investment packages, wellbeing co-benefits assessments considered factors such as equity and cultural wellbeing, taking into account the values and priorities of Te Taki Haruru.

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

This report provides Council with options to reduce city and DCC emissions through its decisions on the 9 year plan, including by way of an option to incorporate an additional city emissions LoS. Updated Zero Carbon investment packages are also presented.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report sets out a potential new performance measure (LoS) relating to city emissions. The scope of this new performance measure would ultimately reflect Council’s other decisions on the 9 year plan.

The implications of updated Zero Carbon investment packages for the 9 year plan are also set out in the report (they are unfunded, with implications for rates and debt).

Financial considerations

There would be no additional cost associated with introduction of a new city emissions LoS.

Financial considerations associated with updated Zero Carbon investment packages are set out in the report.

Significance

The decision to introduce a city emissions LoS is considered low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

DCC 9 year plan engagement materials included information about Council decisions on Zero Carbon investment packages. A summary of 9 year plan submissions that are relevant to Zero Carbon investment packages is set out in the report.

Engagement - internal

CEO Office (Special Projects lead) has been consulted regarding the proposed city emissions LoS.

A range of teams have been involved in checking and updating Zero Carbon investment options/ packages (Transport, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, City Development, Housing, Property, Finance).

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There may be reputational risks for the DCC associated with non-delivery on emissions reduction ambitions, given the target adopted by Council in 2019.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified.

Community Boards

9 year plan submissions relevant to Zero Carbon investment packages were received from some community boards.

Council

26 May 2025

Performing Arts Venue Update 9 year plan 2025-2034

Department: Ara Toi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Public submissions received as part of the 9 year plan 2025-34 (9YP) support a mix of performing arts initiatives.

2 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on progress toward delivering a performing arts venue in Ōtepoti Dunedin and presents options for Council to consider as part of the 9YP deliberations.

3 This report also contains a summary of public submissions received as part of the 9YP.

4 Since 2018, Council has worked with the performing arts community to explore solutions for addressing a long-standing gap in mid-sized theatre infrastructure.

5 Extensive sector engagement and analysis, including the Charcoalblue study and subsequent proposals by the Dunedin Theatre Network and the Performing Arts Group, have informed this work.

6 In January 2025, Council reaffirmed its support for the sector and requested staff to continue working with performing arts community partners to progress a proposed three-venue proposal.

7 Public submissions received as part of the 9YP support a mix of performing arts initiatives.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers how it wishes to proceed with a Performing Arts Venue.

BACKGROUND

Overview of Performing Arts Venue Project 2018-2025

8 The DCC and the performing arts community have been exploring options for developing a performing arts venue since 2018.

Charcoalblue study 2018-2021

9 From 2018 to 2021, the DCC and Creative New Zealand (CNZ) commissioned a three-phase study by theatre consultants Charcoalblue.

10 Phase One involved sector consultation to identify gaps and a shared vision, resulting in Council endorsement in April 2019.

11 Phase Two proposed options for a flexible, mid-sized theatre (350–450 seats) with supporting amenities.

12 Phase Three focused on business modelling and assessing two venue options: the Athenaeum (preferred) and the Mayfair Theatre (alternative).

13 In March 2021, as part of the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 consultation, the community was asked for feedback on a mid-sized theatre. Of the 1,878 submissions received, 56% supported the development, while 44% did not. When presented with venue options, 53% favoured the Athenaeum and 40% supported the Mayfair.

14 In May 2021, this feedback was reported to Council, which directed further engagement with the arts community and allocated $17.1 million in the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 for a performing arts venue.

Engagement with the Performing Arts Community 2021-2025

15 The establishment of a Performing Arts Round-Table group was proposed to bring the sector together and continue discussions on the development of a performing arts venue. This approach was successfully undertaken with the music community to work together to develop the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan.

16 After the extensive Charcoalblue process and with no clear Council resolution however, the performing arts community elected to focus on formulating a solution amongst themselves.

17 Staff continued to meet with individual performing arts stakeholder groups including the Playhouse, Mayfair theatre, the Atheneum, Stage South, Regent Theatre, PolyFest, Amateur Theatre Production and Dunedin Fringe. Staff also continued to meet with performing arts producers and practitioners.

18 In 2022, the Playhouse Theatre, the Athenaeum, and the Mayfair Theatre formed the Dunedin Theatre Network (DTN) to develop a networked approach to strengthening the city’s theatre infrastructure.

19 DTN proposed a staged plan to explore partnerships with the DCC and other funders to refurbish the three venues as a coordinated network. In line with previous Council resolutions, staff worked collaboratively with DTN to support this approach.

20 Throughout 2023–2024, Council staff also engaged with a broader group of stakeholders who had come together as an informal collective known as the Performing Arts Group. Reflecting a wide range of interests across the local performing arts sector, this group included the Playhouse and Mayfair Theatres, Athenaeum, Stage South, and the Regent Theatre, as well as independent theatre practitioners.

The Performing Arts Group 9 year plan 2025-34 proposal – January 2025

21 In December 2024, the Performing Arts Group (the Group), in discussions with the General Manager Arts, Culture, and Recreation, elected to prepare the three-venue proposal for presentation to Council in January 2025.

22 The Group’s proposal built on the earlier work of the Dunedin Theatre Network and Stage South. It outlined an integrated approach featuring the development of three distinct venues designed to meet the needs of different areas of the performing arts sector.

23 Together, the three-venue proposal offered an intergenerational vision—from a dedicated children’s theatre to a central city multi-use creative hub, and a future-focused, purpose-built performing arts centre.

24 The Group’s three-venue proposal is summarised as follows:

a. The Playhouse Theatre

Envisioned as a dedicated home for children’s and youth theatre, offering a 120-seat character auditorium and a large upstairs lounge for social use. The goal is to restore and modernise the theatre while improving accessibility and the overall experience for performers, audiences, and crew.

This redevelopment supports the development of young theatre practitioners and strengthens the performing arts ecosystem in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

Estimated to cost $5.79m, with $3.35m requested in cornerstone funding.

b. The New Athenaeum

The New Athenaeum aims to become a central city creative hub with a focus on literary and live performance arts. It includes a 120-seat black box theatre, a 600-capacity live music venue, and additional spaces such as a library, café/bar, commercial kitchen, recording studio, and offices.

This redevelopment supports a wide range of arts activity, including live music, fringe theatre, and literary initiatives, while also contributing to central city vibrancy and the visitor economy.

Estimated to cost $15.48m, with $4.25m requested in cornerstone funding.

c. A New Performing Arts Centre

The proposed Performing Arts Centre is a future-facing, purpose-built venue designed to support diverse performing arts needs in Ōtepoti Dunedin. It will offer flexible, multi-use spaces for rehearsing, producing, performing, and engaging with the arts.

Intended to attract both local and touring performances, the Centre aims to foster innovation, grow audiences, and contribute to the city’s cultural and economic vitality.

Estimated to cost $28.02m, with $9.5m requested in cornerstone funding.

25 This proposal was presented in a report to Council at the 28 January 2025 meeting. At this meeting, Council resolved the following:

Moved (Cr Carmen Houlahan/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Reaffirms its commitment to support the performing arts community

b) Requests staff continue to work with the Performing Arts Group on their proposal and how best to progress it including:

i. Seeking legal advice on ownership and partnership structures

ii. Investigating possible operating and funding models

c) Reports back to Council in time for deliberations on the 9 year plan on progress.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (14).

Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1

Motion carried (CNL/2025/042)

26 The 10 Year Plan 2021-31 included a capital budget of $17.1m for a performing arts venue. Current proposals are now seeking cornerstone funding for three separate venues, over different timeframes. Ownership and partnership options would need to be explored to assist decision making in what, if any, funding is to be provided in the 9 year plan, if it would be operating or capital expenditure, and what the timing of the expenditure would be.

DISCUSSION

Progressing work on the Performing Arts Group proposal

27 To better understand potential delivery arrangements for a performing arts venue, staff reviewed a range of successful approaches used by other councils. The following case study examples were selected based on their relevance and similarity to the Ōtepoti Dunedin context and offer insight into how comparable projects have been effectively developed and completed. Further information about each project is appended to this report in Attachment A.

Case Study One: The Waikato Regional Theatre in Hamilton is an $80m partnership between Hamilton City Council, the Waikato Regional Property Trust, and the Momentum Waikato Foundation, initiated in 2016 and scheduled for completion in 2025.

Case Study Two: Te Pou Ō Mata-Au in Balclutha, a $25m community-led project, was developed and is now operated by the Clutha Community Hub Charitable Trust, beginning in 2016 and completed in 2023.

Case Study Three: St James Theatre is an ongoing $45m restoration, and is a collaboration between Auckland City Council, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and St James Holdings Limited.

28 A review of how these projects developed reveals several consistent themes contributing to their success. These are:

§ A clear and compelling vision in place.

§ A commitment from council at the outset.

§ The early establishment of an entity to lead and champion the project.

§ A comprehensive business plan in place.

§ Early development of fundraising partnerships to build momentum and credibility.

§ User and audience research to inform and refine the final design.

29 Time constraints have prevented staff from seeking more detailed legal advice on ownership and partnership structures, but this work would be part of a business plan for any of the options.

Feedback received from the 9 year plan 2025-34 consultation

30 As part of the 9YP consultation, 85 public comments and submissions were received related to performing arts. These are summarised into the following themes:

§ Sector morale and need for Council support
The performing arts community in Ōtepoti Dunedin reports a state of demoralisation, citing both creative and financial struggles. There is strong consensus that Council investment is essential to reversing this decline. Many respondents support the development of an Ōtepoti Theatre Action Plan to provide strategic direction and revitalise the sector.

§ Advocacy for increased funding and venue commitment

65 respondents strongly advocate for increasing general funding for the performing arts, reinstating the $17.1m tagged for a new performing arts venue into the 9YP budget, and a firm Council commitment to the provision of a new, fit-for-purpose performing arts venue.

§ Dunedin Theatre Network / Stage South Proposal

16 submitters refer to the Dunedin Theatre Network/Stage South venues proposal and 13 explicitly endorse this plan. Three oppose the proposal including two advocating for the refurbishment of 231 Stuart Street. One submission was received requesting Council to support a member of the community to turn 231 Stuart Street back into a theatre and operate it.

§ Existing venues

There is strong support for investment in existing venues Te Whare o Rukutia and the Playhouse Theatre. It is noted that the funding for Te Whare o Rukutia is captured within the Grants funding.

§ Concerns regarding the Mayfair Theatre

Submissions from theatre professionals is that further investment in the Mayfair Theatre is not advisable. Concerns include structural and technical limitations, poor accessibility, and a stage design unsuitable for contemporary theatre production. The single submission that supports funding this venue’s refurbishment is from the Mayfair Theatre Trust.

31 The Regent Theatre Trust of Otago submitted a proposal (Attachment B) requesting $1.4m capital funding from Council to deliver their ‘Stage on a Stage’ initiative as a short-term solution to address the need for a mid-sized, professional-grade performance venue in the city. This proposal had also been presented and discussed in meetings between staff and the wider Performing Arts Group in 2024. It has also been discussed with the CEO and GM Arts, Culture and Recreation in May 2025.

32 This temporary solution involves constructing a 300–350 seat modular theatre within the existing Regent Theatre stage area. The design includes a self-contained auditorium, retractable seating, and integrated lighting and sound systems, all housed within the current stage footprint. The setup can be installed or packed down in four hours and allows for independent operation without disrupting the Regent Theatre’s main auditorium, offering flexibility for diverse programming and efficient use of existing infrastructure.

33 It has the potential to provide a cost-effective, timely, interim solution that ensures continued support for the performing arts community while longer-term venue solutions are developed. The proposal estimates the capital cost at $1.4m, with $300k operational funding required annually. To deliver this initiative, the Regent Theatre Trust of Otago has requested $1.4m capital funding from Council.

34 There are still some unknowns for staff to work through with the Regent Theatre Trust of Otago to better understand the operational implications of the ‘Stage on a Stage’ proposal. This includes how quickly the initiative could be implemented, when new programming could begin, what new opportunities will be available to the wider performing arts community, and what, if any, impact this may have on the existing Regent Theatre programme.

The current funding environment for performing arts in Dunedin.

35 Following the closure of the Fortune Theatre Company in 2018, its annual Creative New Zealand funding of $500,000 was withdrawn from Ōtepoti Dunedin’s performing arts sector. Since then, DCC has become the primary provider of funding support for the sector. It should be noted that since 2020, Creative New Zealand (CNZ) and the Otago Community Trust (OCT) have also contributed an average $45,000 per annum for performing arts related grants.

36 The table below outlines the total contestable grant funding allocated by DCC, with CNZ and OCT contributions, to support performing arts activities in Ōtepoti Dunedin since 2018. While these figures include operational funding for both the Mayfair Theatre and the New Athenaeum, the majority of funding has been directed toward performing arts projects.

Table 1: DCC Contestable Grant Funding – Performing Arts Activities 2018 – 2024.

37 Support for performing arts venues is also provided through the following property grants/arrangements:

The Regent Theatre Trust of Otago $210,000 pa

Te Whare o Rukutia “Peppercorn” rent for 20 Princes Street

(est. commercial value $80,000 pa)

OPTIONS

38 The following section outlines a range of options for progressing the development of a performing arts venue and supporting the performing arts community in Ōtepoti Dunedin. These options are designed to be flexible; Council may choose to pursue none, one, a combination, or all of them, depending on priorities, resources, and desired outcomes. This approach allows for a tailored response by Council to meet the needs of the performing arts community while balancing other community requests.

39 In all scenarios, staff will continue to work collaboratively, and in partnership, with the performing arts community to support their work in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

Option One – Allocate a placeholder commitment in Year 1 to fund the Regent Theatre Trust ‘Stage on a Stage’ initiative (estimated cost $1.4m) pending the completion of a feasibility and operational impact report by staff, and subject to Council approval before the funds are released.

40 The Regent Theatre Trust of Otago submitted a proposal as part of 9 year plan submissions requesting $1.4m capital funding from Council to deliver their ‘Stage on a Stage’ initiative as a short-term solution to address the need for a mid-sized, professional-grade performance venue in the city.

41 There are still some unknowns for staff to work through with the Trust to better understand the operational implications of the ‘Stage on a Stage’ proposal. This includes how quickly the initiative could be implemented, when new programming could begin, what new opportunities will be available to the wider performing arts community, and what impact this may have on the existing Regent Theatre programme.

42 If Council decide to pursue this option, staff and the Regent Theatre Trust of Otago would work through these issues, and report back to Council by August 2025 with a more detailed investigation of the operational implications, benefits to the community, and potential risks, of the “Stage on a stage” proposal.

Impact assessment

43 Funding the Regent Theatre Trust of Otago ‘Stage on a Stage’ initiative at the level requested requires $1.4m in capex funding.

Debt

· Would require borrowing of $1.4m to fund this option.

Rates

· Rates funding would be required to fund interest and depreciation expenses. If the $1.4m is incurred in the 2025/26 year (year 1) the rate increase is $70k for year 1, $100k each year in years 2, 3 and 4, and $112k each year from year 5 onwards. Note that this assumes a useful life of 10 years.

Zero carbon

44 City and DCC emissions are likely to stay the same under this option. Use of an existing venue avoids emissions associated with capital works, and the venue is well-positioned to minimise users’ transport emissions. While the venue currently relies on LPG for heating, this forms a relatively small part of the DCC emissions baseline and is unlikely to increase markedly as a result of the proposal.

Advantages

· Adds a 300–350 seat venue with professional-grade infrastructure.

· Minimal disruption to the Regent Theatre’s existing programming.

· Enhances flexibility and venue availability for a range of users.

· Has support from national theatre practitioners and touring companies.

· Provides an interim venue during which medium-to-long term solutions can be finalised.

Disadvantages

· A temporary solution that does not meet all long-term sector needs.

· Relies on the Regent Theatre’s capacity to deliver and operate effectively.

· Local and community use relies on the Regent Theatre’s ability to deliver affordable access to the venue.

· May divert attention and funding from permanent venue solutions.

Option Two - Allocate $75k opex funding in Year 1 of the 9YP to support the development of a comprehensive business plan for the Dunedin Theatre Network’s three-venue proposal.

45 In 2022, the Dunedin Theatre Network - the Athenaeum, Playhouse Theatre, and Mayfair Theatre - received a $100,000 grant to develop a concept for upgrading these three venues. At the same time, Stage South independently developed a concept plan for a new performing arts centre, drawing on community funding and inspired by a successful model from the Kāpiti Coast.

46 In 2024, the Performing Arts Group decided to combine elements from both initiatives to form a comprehensive three-venue concept design. This unified proposal was presented to Council in January 2025.

47 The next step in progressing this proposal is the development of a robust feasibility plan that includes the identification or design of a comprehensive, viable, and sustainable business model to support the operation of the three venues.

48 This option proposes allocating $75,000 to the Performing Arts Group to support the development of a detailed business plan demonstrating the financial sustainability of the proposed three-venue model. Having a well-developed business plan in place will strengthen fundraising efforts, build project momentum, and enhance the proposal’s credibility with potential partners.

49 Under this option an additional $75k in rates funding is required.

Debt

· There are no impacts on debt.

Rates

· Rate funding of $75k would be required to fund this option.

Zero carbon

The development of a business plan would have no impact on emissions and would inform a more detailed emissions impact assessment.

Advantages

· Allows time and resources to fully investigate ownership, partnership, and operating models.

· Provides resource for the Performing Arts Group to develop a business plan to demonstrate the financial sustainability of the three-venue model.

· A comprehensive business plan in place will help enable fundraising partnerships, project momentum and credibility.

Disadvantages

· No immediate increase in performance space or sector capacity.

· Does not address short-term infrastructure gaps.

· Without a funding commitment, the Playhouse Theatre anticipates closing in two years’ time.

Option Three – Allocate seed funding in Years 2 and 3 of the 9YP to support the Performing Arts Group/ Dunedin Repertory Society Ltd (Playhouse Theatre Trust) in the refurbishment of the Playhouse Theatre (total funding $3.35m).

50 This option allocates initial funding for Phase One of the three-venue proposal - the refurbishment of the Playhouse Theatre. The proposed timeframe allows for the completion of business and feasibility planning, the planning and initiation of fundraising efforts, and for staff to address any matters related to the ownership of the refurbished asset before the funds are released.

51 The proposal would see funding provided in Year 2 and Year 3 of the 9YP to spread the rates impact. The funding would not be available to the group until Year 3 and release of the funds would be subject to a range of conditions. The conditions would include the Playhouse Theatre Trust securing other funding.

Impact assessment

52 Under this option, $3.35m seed funding would be allocated the Performing Arts Group towards the refurbishment of the Playhouse Theatre.

Debt

· There are no impacts on debt.

Rates

· If rates funding is spread over year 2 of $1 m, and year 3 of $2.35m, the rate impact based on the draft 9 year plan budget is 0.4% in year 2 and 0.4% in year 3.

Zero carbon

53 City and DCC emissions are likely to stay the same under this option. Use of an existing venue avoids emissions associated with capital works, and the venue is well-positioned to minimise users’ transport emissions. While the venue currently relies on LPG for heating, usage is relatively small compared with other DCC owned CBD buildings such as the Civic Centre and Public Library and is unlikely to increase markedly as a result of the proposal.

Advantages

· Delivers a permanent, fit-for-purpose venue for youth and children’s theatre.

· First stage of a longer-term, three-venue strategy.

· Builds on strong community backing and an existing venue with heritage value.

· Enhances sector capacity while broader plans are developed.

· Progresses the first stage of the community-led Performing Arts Proposal.

Disadvantages

· Limited capacity (120 seats) may not meet broader sector demand.

· Higher upfront capital investment than a temporary solution.

Option Four – Council may wish to provide a different solution.

NEXT STEPS

54 The next steps will depend on the direction provided by Council.

Signatories

Author:	Lisa Wilkie - Kaiarahi - Team Leader Creative Partnerships
Authoriser:	Cam McCracken - Director DPAG, Toitū, Lan Yuan and Olveston

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇨a	Comparable Case Studies (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨b	Regent Theatre Trust of Otago submission (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨c	Clutha Charitable Theatre Hub Trust Business Case (Under Separate Cover 1)

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and promotes the cultural, social and economic 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 performing arts is a key part of the city’s arts and culture ecology and supports delivery of the Ara Toi, Social Wellbeing and Economic Development strategies, Te Taki Haruru – the Māori Strategic Framework and the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan. The development of a new performing arts venue would also help deliver some of the objectives of the Spatial Plan and the Future Development Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua and mātāwaka are partners in Te Taki Haruru, the DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework, which includes supporting the cultural, social and economic wellbeing of Māori in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

Mana whenua have been included throughout the life cycle of the Performing Arts Venue work. Mana whenua were represented on the original steering group for the feasibility study. Consultation was also undertaken with Māori practitioners in relation to performing arts venue options.

Sustainability

Less theatre and performing arts activity could affect the sustainability of the city’s arts and culture ecology (including amateur and professional practitioners, educators and career pathways) and short-and long-term access of Ōtepoti Dunedin’s communities and audience to theatre experiences in the city.

Zero carbon

Zero carbon impacts are covered in the body of the report.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report presents performing arts venue options for consideration in the 9 year plan.

Financial considerations

Financial considerations are discussed in this report.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

External engagement about the performing arts broader project has included working with performing arts venues, organisations, and individual practitioners, Creative New Zealand, and mana whenua. This report builds upon discussions with representatives from the Playhouse Theatre, the Athenaeum the Mayfair Theatre, Stage South, and the Regent Theatre. This report presents community feedback received as part of the 9 year plan 2025-34 consultation.

Engagement - internal

Engagement has taken place with Ara Toi, Property Services, Finance, Communications and Marketing, Corporate Policy, City Development, and Economic Development.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks identified.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The development of a performing arts venue for Dunedin City is of interest to the broader Dunedin community and will be of interest to all Community Boards.

Council

26 May 2025

Development Contributions - Feedback and Next Steps - 9 year plan 2025-2034

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Draft Development Contributions Policy (draft Policy) was consulted on as part of the 9 year plan. Council received 15 submissions on the draft Policy.

2 The purpose of this report is to consider the feedback received from submitters, consider possible options for reviewing the development contribution charges, and noting the next steps, so that the Policy can be finalised and adopted by 30 June 2025.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Development Contributions – Feedback and Next Steps report.

b) Directs staff to prepare options for capping and / or phasing in increases in development contribution charges for consideration at a committee meeting to be held in June 2025.

BACKGROUND

3 Section 197AA of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the purpose of development contributions as:

“The purpose of the development contribution provisions in this Act is to enable territorial authorities to recover from those persons undertaking development a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the total cost of capital expenditure necessary to service growth over the long term”.

4 Development contributions are used to fund growth related infrastructure. The contribution is a one-off charge payable by developers. The subsequent operation and maintenance of such infrastructure is funded by the DCC through rates and other charges.

5 The draft Policy was presented to Council on 11 February 2025, and was approved for consultation purposes as part of the 9 year plan 2025-34.

6 Development contribution charges included in the draft Policy are calculated on capital expenditure apportioned to growth, and based on the draft 9 year plan capital budgets.

7 Proposed changes to the Policy consulted on through the 9 year plan process included:

a) Significant increases in charging proposed for some areas, based on the level of growth expenditure planned for those areas.

b) The inclusion of retirement villages and aged care facilities as separate land use categories for charging development contributions, and their proposed factors for charging.

c) The ability to inflation adjust development contribution charges annually, in line with the Producers Price Index Outputs for Construction.

d) The ability to apply an inflation adjustment to an assessed charge, if the time between the initial development contribution assessment and the the time that Council would normally invoice for the development contribution exceeds 24 months.

e) Renaming the “Unusual Developments” section of the current policy to “Special Assessments” and providing more clarity as to where these would apply.

8 Section 102 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Policy to be adopted to provide predictability and certainty about sources and levels of funding.

DISCUSSION

9 The time for making submissions on the Draft Development Contributions Policy closed on Friday 16 May 2025, following a two-week extension on the closing date for 9 year plan submissions. This extension enabled submitters to consider a detailed asset schedule that had not been included in our supporting documentation for the draft Policy.

10 The detailed asset scheduled is provided at Attachment A. This schedule will now be included as an Appendix to the Policy.

Submissions received – development contribution charges

11 A total of 15 submissions were received, relating to Development Contributions.

12 Of the 15 submissions received, 13 were opposed to the development contribution charges. Submitters argued that the draft Policy fails to support growth. It will deter investment, particularly in an already heavily regulated consenting environment, and is contrary to the intent of the 2GP, which seeks to enable additional development.

13 Two submitters supported the principle that growth be funded through development contributions.

14 Details of individual submissions are discussed below.

15 A submission from the Master Builders Association noted that for areas such as Middlemarch, the proposed contribution is an amount that is economically unsustainable relative to land values. While supporting that “growth pays for growth”, the scale and abruptness of the increases go far beyond what the development community can absorb in the short term. The Policy as proposed could dramatically slow down development activity in Dunedin.

16 A submission from Business South urged Council not to increase development contributions. The additional cost will impact Dunedin’s ability to be competitive with other regions and will be a disincentive to develop in Dunedin City. Some businesses will stop their operations and move to other locations. This submitter proposed bringing the policy in line with other NZ councils’ policies and practices, who support, attract, and encourage business development.

17 A submission from Willowridge noted that the proposed charges will seriously impact the provision of housing including affordable housing. The increases of over $10,000 per Equivalent Household Unit (EHU) will seriously impact the viability of residential projects, and the increase of $30,000 per EHU in Warrington, Seacliff, Waikouaiti and Karitane will stop development from occurring there. High contributions will also impact commercial development and can be the difference between development occurring in the city and not occurring.

18 A submission from Terramark Ltd advised that the City must retain the development contributions as they are. The proposed increases are significant, and for Dunedin’s satellite towns, development will simply stop. In Middlemarch, the value of a site is commensurate with the proposed contribution, which makes any development unaffordable. Increasing the rating base by encouraging growth is the only solution to raising capital and minimising debt.

19 A submission from TL Survey Services noted that the Policy is more a mapped financial proposal rather than a Policy that considers the financial and infrastructure needs of the city, along with socially minded, proportionate and fair financial systems. The proposed development contributions may render social housing and philanthropic projects unlikely to proceed. The submitter proposes a tiered structure with thresholds for different sized subdivisions.

20 A submission from TGC Homes noted that Dunedin is already one of the most expensive centres to build in NZ. The consequence of the development contributions is more barriers to development in a city that desperately needs more housing and increase the cost for entry level housing in the city. There should be no increase in development contributions.

21 A submission from Port Otago advised that development contributions need to be affordable, as well as fair, equitable and justified, to ensure upfront costs do not slow down Dunedin’s growth. It also requests that should the inland port at Mosgiel proceed, it would be the subject of a development agreement, rather than the ordinary provisions of the Policy.

22 A submission from Affordable Design Services noted that the development contribution proposal is a money grab that will stifle development in the city.

23 One submitter noted that the charge for Middlemarch is equal to or greater than section values in Middlemarch. This would encourage development outside of the serviced area into rural residential where a septic tank system would be cheaper, but potentially compromise the individual bore system that serves Middlemarch. If DCC is planning work for Middlemarch, then a proposal, with options, needs to be presented to the community.

24 The Strath Taieri Community Board submitted that the increase in charges for Middlemarch is unsustainable and poses a significant barrier to growth. The fee represents approximately half the value of an average section in Middlemarch, and risks making development in the area unviable.

25 One submission noted that the fee hike for the Warrington area is unjustified. Their plans for a small subdivision in the area will now most likely not proceed. It will make development in this area uneconomic.

26 One submitter advised that the proposed charges are short sighted and will not help Dunedin to be economically and socially prosperous or have quality housing choices. Proposed charges for Karitane, Waikouaiti and Middlemarch were outrageous and reflect poor infrastructure spending by the Council.

27 Some submitters made recommendations, including:

· Take a more phased approach to funding infrastructure and growth, spread the load more equitably – adopt a transitional policy or interim charges.

· Contributions could be shaped based on development size, so that a small 2-3 lot subdivision is not charged the same per lot fee as a large greenfield development.

· Provide partial exemptions / reductions for developments that meet affordability criteria or other social objectives. This would help ensure that first home buyer projects, affordable housing initiatives, and modest local developments remain viable.

· Commit to ring-fencing development contribution revenues for infrastructure projects that enable growth and publish transparent reporting on collection and use of these funds.

Submission received - Retirement Villages

28 A submission from Summerset noted that while the draft Policy recognises the lower demands that retirement villages have on the city’s infrastructure, it does not go far enough. It proposes that Council adopts a specific definition for independent living units in a retirement village, distinguished from independent living units in a lifestyle village. The current definition of “Retirement Housing Unit” refers to all types of retirement living and does not distinguish between “comprehensive care” and “lifestyle” retirement villages.

29 Table 1 below shows the equivalent household unit conversion factors for retirement villages, included in the draft Policy, along with the factors proposed by Summerset. Table 2 shows the same information for aged care facilities.

Table 1 – Retirement Villages

	Water	Waste water	Storm water*	Transport	Reserves	Community Infra
Draft Policy	0.5	0.5	0.34 per 100m² ISA*	0.5	0.5	0.5
Summerset Proposal	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.2	0.1	0.1

* ISA – Impermeable surface area.

Table 2 – Aged Care Facilities

	Water	Waste water	Storm water*	Transport	Reserves	Community Infra
Draft Policy	0.45	0.45	0.34 per 100m² ISA*	0.2	0.28	0.15
Summerset Proposal	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.1	0.05	0.05

* ISA – Impermeable surface area.

30 Summerset advises that its proposed factors are based on those used by the Tauranga City Council following a recent review of its policy. Staff note that the factors have recently been consulted on, and the reviewed policy has not yet been adopted.

31 At its meeting on 11 February 2025, when considering the draft Policy, Council agreed to recognise the reduced infrastructure demands associated with retirement villages and aged care facilities and include them as new land use categories in the Policy.

32 The definition of retirement village and aged care facilities in the draft Policy are as follows:

“Retirement Housing Unit – Retirement Housing Unit is defined as any dwelling or unit in a retirement village that contain shared-use community facilities for the residential accommodation of people who are predominantly retired (other than an aged care room).

Aged Care Unit – Any dwelling unit in a supported living facility licensed as a rest home or hospice that provide full time care of the elderly or infirm, including any hospital-level care.”

33 The factors proposed in the draft Policy were based on the median equivalent household unit conversion factors of 13 councils who provide for retirement villages, and five councils who provide for aged care facilities in their development contribution policies.

34 Six of the 13 councils have since updated their policies for retirement villages, and as a result there have been small movements in the median values for Transport, from 0.5 to 0.4, and Reserves, from 0.5 to 0.44.

Development Contribution Charges and next steps

35 The schedule of development contribution charges included in the draft Policy have been calculated based on the draft 9 year plan capital expenditure programme, apportioned to growth. The charges have been calculated for specific geographical areas as appropriate.

36 The table below shows the proposed charges in the draft Policy compared to current charges for each area (excl. GST).

Table 3 – Proposed charges

	2025-34 Draft Policy $	2021-31 Policy $	$ Change	% Change
Water Supply
Dunedin Central Brownfields	7,380	3,160	4,220	134%
Dunedin Central Greenfields	9,120	3,900	5,220	134%
Outram, Waitati, Warrington, Seacliff, Merton	7,380	3,160	4,220	134%
Waikouaiti and Karitane	15,220	1,450	13,770	950%
West Taieri	10,820	9,980	840	8%
Wastewater
Dunedin Central Brownfields	8,410	3,980	4,430	111%
Dunedin Central Greenfields	10,380	5,120	5,260	103%
Warrington	20,210	9,540	10,760	114%
Seacliff	20,210	3,550	16,660	469%
Karitane, Waikouaiti	20,210	1,450	18,760	1,294%
Middlemarch	45,030	8,970	36,060	402%
Stormwater
Dunedin Central Brownfields	2,540	2,620	(80)	(3%)
Dunedin Central Greenfields	2,540	2,620	(80)	(3%)
All other Dunedin Metropolitan properties	2,540	2,620	(80)	(3%)
Transportation
Allanton	2,760	1,760	1,000	57%
Dunedin Central Brownfields	2,760	1,760	1,000	57%
Dunedin Central Greenfields	2,760	1,760	1,000	57%
Outram	2,760	1,760	1,000	57%
Waitati, Warrington, Seacliff, Merton, Waikouaiti, Karitane, Middlemarch, Rockland Rural and West Taieri	2,080	1,620	460	28%
All other Dunedin Metropolitan properties	2,760	1,760	1,000	57%
All other Dunedin other properties	2,080	1,620	460	28%
Reserves
Allanton	550	1,010	(460)	(46%)
Dunedin Central Brownfields	550	1,010	(460)	(46%)
Dunedin Central Greenfields	550	1,010	(460)	(46%)
Outram	550	1,010	(460)	(46%)
Waitati, Warrington, Seacliff, Merton, Waikouaiti, Karitane, Middlemarch, Rockland Rural and West Taieri	160	200	(40)	(20%)
All other Dunedin Metropolitan properties	550	1,010	(460)	(46%)
All other Dunedin other properties	160	200	(40)	(20%)
Community Infrastructure
Allanton	1,820	1,130	690	61%
Dunedin Central Brownfields	1,820	1,130	690	61%
Dunedin Central Greenfields	1,820	1,130	690	61%
Outram	1,820	1,130	690	61%
Waitati, Warrington, Seacliff, Merton, Waikouaiti, Karitane, Middlemarch, Rockland Rural and West Taieri	630	220	410	186%
All other Dunedin Metropolitan properties	1,820	1,130	690	61%
All other Dunedin other properties	630	220	410	186%

37 Table 4 below shows the total development contributions payable by area of benefit (excl. GST):

Table 4 – development contributions payable by area of benefit

Area of Benefit	Water Supply	Waste water	Storm water	Transport	Reserves	Community Infrastructure	Total Contribution by Area of Benefit
Allanton				$2,760	$550	$1,820	$5,130
Dunedin Central Brownfields	$7,380	$8,410	$2,540	$2,760	$550	$1,820	$23,460
Dunedin Central Greenfields	$9,120	$10,380	$2,540	$2,760	$550	$1,820	$27,170
Outram	$7,380			$2,760	$550	$1,820	$12,510
Waitati	$7,380			$2,080	$160	$630	$10,250
Warrington	$7,380	$20,210		$2,080	$160	$630	$30,460
Seacliff	$7,380	$20,210		$2,080	$160	$630	$30,460
Merton	$7,380			$2,080	$160	$630	$10,250
Karitane	$15,220	$20,210		$2,080	$160	$630	$38,300
Waikouaiti	$15,220	$20,210		$2,080	$160	$630	$38,300
Middlemarch		$45,030		$2,080	$160	$630	$47,900
Rockland Rural				$2,080	$160	$630	$2,870
West Taieri	$10,820			$2,080	$160	$630	$13,690
All other Dunedin Metropolitan properties			$2,540	$2,760	$550	$1,820	$7,670
All other Dunedin other properties				$2,080	$160	$630	$2,870

38 Charges have increased from the current Policy, as planned growth infrastructure has included 2GP and Future Development Strategy requirements.

39 If Council wishes to address the concerns raised by submitters about the increase in charges, several options are available to Council such as:

· setting caps on some of the areas of benefit that have had the most significant increases in charges, through limiting the development contribution charge for specific infrastructure types.

· phasing the increase in charges over a number of years.

40 Setting caps would mean that development contributions would not cover the full cost of growth in those areas that are more expensive to service with infrastructure, and / or have lower levels of expected growth in EHU’s, over which to spread the costs.

41 Phasing in an increase in charges over the next two or three years could be implemented. A review of this development contribution policy will be required for the 10 year plan 2027-27, so if the charges were to be phased in over three years, the community would be on early notice that the charges will still likely be increasing in the next 10 year plan.

Next steps

42 As noted above, development contribution charges are calculated on capital expenditure apportioned to growth, and based on the draft 9 year plan capital budgets.

43 The schedule of charges will require some update, to take account of both staff identified updates to the capital programme, and on decisions made at this meeting on the 9 year plan 2025-34, that could impact the capital programme.

44 If Council wishes to consider capping and / or phasing in increases in charges, work will be undertaken to provide options for Council’s consideration.

45 It is recommended that options and updated information on the draft Policy be presented to a June committee meeting. This will allow proposed changes to be incorporated into the draft Policy, in time for its adoption on 30 June 2025, as part of the 9 year plan.

OPTIONS

46 There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

47 A report will be presented to a June 2025 committee meeting with options for amending the draft Development Contributions Policy.

Signatories

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Special Projects Manager
Authoriser:	Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Detailed Asset Schedules	299

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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 Development Contributions Policy supports the infrastructure related strategies by providing a mechanism to fund infrastructure related growth costs.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua and Māori have had the opportunity to provide feedback through the 9 year plan consultation process.

Sustainability

Funding growth infrastructure through development contributions creates a mechanism for development to occur in an efficient and cost-effective way.

Zero carbon

There are no zero carbon impacts in terms of the Development Contributions Policy.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This policy forms part of the 9 year plan.

Financial considerations

Development contributions aim to fund planned growth.

Significance

The draft Policy has been consulted on as part of the 9 year plan, using the special consultative procedure.

Engagement – external

Engagement on the draft Policy has been undertaken. This report provides feedback on that engagement.

Engagement - internal

Staff from across council have been involved in the review of the draft Policy.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The application of the Policy is of interest to Community Boards where growth/development is occurring within their Board areas.

[1] 2023 Census data; ORC annual bus patronage data

4 Submissions
1135449	Chelsea McGaw, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society
Cr Carmen Houlahan entered the meeting at 1.36 pm.
	On behalf of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Ms McGaw spoke to her submission and commented on the importance of investment in ecosystem services for environmental and natural disaster resilience and the investment in conservation. Ms McGaw responded to questions.
1135476	Darryl Sycamore, Terramark Limited
	On behalf of Terramark Limited, Mr Sycamore spoke to their submission on the draft Development Contributions Policy. He advised that he was opposed to the proposed increase in the development contributions. Mr Sycamore responded to questions.
1135473	Mark Geddes, TL Survey Services Ltd
	On behalf of TL Survey Services Limited, Mr Geddes spoke to their submission on the draft Development Contributions Policy. He provided suggestions which included a tiered approach, dependent on the size of a development or phasing the increases in over a few years. Mr Geddes responded to questions.

Financial Year	Interest Rate Assumption	Change
2025/26 (year 1)	4.00%	Was 4.15%
2026/27 – 2028/29 (years 2-9)	4.15%	No change
2029/30 – 2033/34 (years 5-9)	5.00%	No change

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 30 April 2025	18

*Should we remove 231 Stuart Street (formerly Fortune Theatre) from the list of strategic assets in the DCC Significance and Engagement policy?*
	Yes	No	Total
Submissions	356	193	549
Submissions	65%	35%	549

Activity	Number
Parks and recreation	22
Property	10
Regulatory	1
Transport	38
Waste	4
Total	75

Author:	Janet Fraser - Corporate Planner
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Saturday, 15 November 2025	7.30am to 6.00pm	· Flagstaff Whare Flat Road, between Rollinsons Road and Longridge Road
Sunday, 16 November 2025	7.30am to 6.00pm	· Three Mile Hill Road, between Halfway Bush Road and Silverstream Valley Road