Council 24 February 2026

 

Reports

 

Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings

Department: Civic

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to show progress on implementing resolutions made at Council meetings. 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council:   a)         Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings as attached.

 

discussion

3          This report also provides an update on resolutions that have been actioned and completed since the last Council meetings.  Note that items on the Forward Work Programme are not included in the attached schedules.

NEXT STEPS

5          Updates will be provided at future Council meetings.

 

Signatories

Author:	Lynne Adamson - Governance Support Officer
Authoriser:	Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Open Action List	31
⇩b	Closed Action List	35

 

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

 

Proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026

Department: 3 Waters

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report proposes making a new bylaw to manage the use of the Dunedin City Council (DCC) water supply network as part of Council’s response to recent legislative and regulatory changes relating to three waters services.

2          Staff have developed a draft proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 (attached to this report as Attachment A) and a draft Statement of Proposal (attached to this report as Attachment B) for the Council’s consideration.

3          Although the proposed Bylaw would be made under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 (LGWSA), aspects of the bylaw-making process requirements set out in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) still apply. This report recommends that the Council makes the determinations required by section 155 of the LGA, which are that:

a)         A bylaw is the most appropriate way to manage the use of the DCC water supply network;

b)        The proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

c)         The proposed Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

4          This report also recommends the Council approves the draft proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 and the associated draft Statement of Proposal for notification for public consultation, using the special consultative procedure set out in the LGA.  

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to manage the use of the Dunedin City Council water supply network. 

b)        Determines that the draft proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 at Attachment A is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

c)         Determines that the draft proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 at Attachment A does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is not inconsistent with that Act.

d)        Determines that the special consultative procedure, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, be used as part of the process to make the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026.

e)        Approves the draft proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 at Attachment A and the draft Statement of Proposal at Attachment B to be notified for public consultation.

f)         Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 and the Statement of Proposal prior to consultation opening.

 

BACKGROUND

The DCC water supply network

5          The DCC water supply network serves over 45,000 properties, and comprises around 210 km² of catchment area, 21 consented water abstraction points, nine water supply dams, 62 treated water reservoirs, over 1700km of pipeline, 21 pumping stations and six water treatment plants. It is important that the Council manages use of the DCC water supply network to protect public health and safety and to manage the network efficiently to maintain levels of service. 

6          The DCC’s activities as a drinking water supplier are directed by and regulated under national-level legislation and regulations, including the Water Services Act 2021, the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022, the Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules 2022 (revised 2024) and the LGWSA.

7          The DCC and other councils across New Zealand use bylaws to set local rules and requirements to assist with the regulation of the use of their water supply networks by customers and the general public. This is to protect the networks themselves, to protect the health and safety of those who use the networks, and to support councils to take the necessary actions to fulfil their duties and obligations under national-level legislation and regulations. The most recent iteration of DCC’s water supply bylaw is the Water Bylaw 2011.

LGWSA and LGA bylaw-making powers and procedure

8          Section 258 of the LGWSA specifically provides that a territorial authority may make a bylaw for the purposes of regulating aspects of water services provision. When the LGWSA was enacted, the equivalent provisions providing for such bylaws to be made under the LGA were repealed.

9          Section 258 of the LGWSA also provides that a bylaw may authorise a water service provider to grant and administer permits (including charging fees for permits) for activities that may be undertaken in relation to water services.

10        A water supply bylaw enables a territorial authority to establish and enforce rules and requirements to protect the water supply network against damage, misuse, interference, or contamination that can pose a risk to public health and safety and/or levels of service. 

11        The DCC and other territorial authorities in New Zealand use bylaws to manage use of their individual water supply networks.  Under the present law, a bylaw is the most feasible way to efficiently and effectively manage the use of the water supply network.

12        The LGA sets out the nature and procedure for the making and review of bylaws.  Section 155 of the LGA requires the local authority to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem (which in this case is the management of the use of the water supply network), a proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that a proposed bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

13        In addition, the LGA requires local authorities to consult the public prior to making a bylaw.

DISCUSSION

14        Dunedin’s existing local rules for managing the use of the DCC water supply network have been in place for many years and need updating to:

a)         Align with the provisions of the LGWSA and the Water Services Act 2021 (and associated standards and compliance rules)

b)        Reflect current operational, safety and compliance requirements

c)         Improve clarity regarding water supply areas, layout and location of points of supply, metering, boundary backflow prevention requirements and compliance enforcement.

15        Making a new bylaw under the LGWSA is appropriate due to the substantial changes and developments in national-level legislation and regulation relating to water supply management over the past five years, culminating in the recent enactment of the LGWSA and the acceptance of the DCC’s Water Services Delivery Plan.

16        If a new bylaw is made, it will need to be reviewed no later than five years after the date on which it was made.

Overview of proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026

17        The purpose of the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 (the proposed Bylaw) is to manage the use of the DCC water supply network in a manner that:

a)         Enables efficient and effective management of the water supply network, including connections to the water supply network, in a manner that supports the Council to maintain levels of service, and to service areas where growth is anticipated.

b)        Protects the Council’s water supply and water supply network and equipment from contamination and against damage, misuse or interference.

c)         Protects against water wastage to better conserve drinking water.

18        To achieve this, the proposed Bylaw would:

a)         Establish requirements for the responsible use of the water supply network, including requirements relating to connections to the water supply network, and by defining the terms and conditions of water supply.

b)        Set enforceable obligations for customers relating to water use and boundary backflow prevention.

19        The proposed Bylaw would replace the DCC Water Bylaw 2011. Much of the substance of the Water Bylaw 2011 would be retained in the proposed Bylaw, but some updated and new requirements would be introduced to reflect current legislation and regulations and current operating conditions, including Dunedin’s growth and development.

20        Section 4 of the draft Statement of Proposal attached to this report at Attachment B includes an analysis of the proposed Bylaw that highlights aspects of the proposed Bylaw that are substantively different from the Water Bylaw 2011. The reasons for taking new approaches generally respond to one or both of:

a)         Changes in national-level legislation and regulations

b)        Internal and external feedback on the application of the Water Bylaw 2011 gathered during its lifetime.

Analysis: determinations under section 155 of the LGA

21        The following paragraphs provide analysis to support the Council to consider the recommended determinations, which section 155 of the LGA requires the council to make before making a new bylaw. 

Section 155(1): Is a bylaw the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem?

22        The DCC water supply network is a public asset that enables an essential service for the community. Most activities related to management and use of the water supply and the water supply network can be managed adequately using non-regulatory methods such as education campaigns.

23        However, there are some instances where it is necessary for the DCC to use a regulatory instrument like a bylaw to set rules and provide the ability to legally enforce compliance. These instances relate to:

a)         protecting water supply network infrastructure from misuse and/or damage

b)        managing water demand

c)         protecting the safety of drinking water.

24        A bylaw is the most appropriate way to manage the DCC water supply network because it enables the Council to:

a)         Establish rules and requirements related to the provision of water supply services, including to protect the network against damage, misuse, interference, or contamination that can pose a risk to public health and safety and/or levels of service;

b)        Define who is entitled to use the network, establish the process to approve connections to the water supply system, provide the mechanisms for charging for different uses of the network, and set out the roles and responsibilities of both customers and the Council in relation to use of the network; and

c)         identify offences and to take enforcement action if offences are committed.

25        Without a bylaw, the DCC would have limited tools available to regulate the use of the water supply network, and would essentially be left with the Water Services Act 2021 and the LGWSA to achieve any meaningful regulation of its network. These pieces of legislation do not contain the detailed administrative powers that a bylaw can provide, for example specific controls for catchment access and use, point of supply layout and location requirements, and customer responsibilities for boundary backflow prevention. The absence of these detailed administrative powers could adversely impact public health and safety and/or the performance of the water supply network, as well as the DCC’s ability to fulfil its duties and obligations as a water supplier under national-level legislation and regulations.

Section 155(2)(a): Is the proposed bylaw the most appropriate form of bylaw?

26        Section 258 of the LGWSA specifically provides that a territorial authority may make a bylaw for the purposes of regulating aspects of water services provision, including:

a)         Connections to, and disconnections from, a water supply network

b)        The provision of water services

c)         Conserving drinking water provided in the territorial authority’s district

d)        The use of equipment or devices for the purposes of providing water services.

27        The proposed Bylaw is an appropriate form of bylaw because it addresses these aspects of water supply provision by the DCC in Dunedin.

28        In addition, the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw because it is:

a)         Aligned with all relevant legislative and regulatory requirements

b)        Not inconsistent with any other Council bylaw

c)         Structured clearly and logically, covering:

i)          Protection of the water supply network

ii)         Conditions of supply

iii)        Breaches and infringement offences

iv)       Administrative matters

d)        User-friendly, with the inclusion of explanatory notes to assist with the interpretation and application of the bylaw by its users.

29        The proposed Bylaw’s form is consistent with nationwide practice for bylaws relating to water services infrastructure and services.

Section 155 (2)(b): Is the proposed Bylaw consistent with the NZBORA?

30        Under section 155(3) of the LGA a bylaw must not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). The Council must consider whether the proposed Bylaw gives rise to any implications under the NZBORA.

31        Subject to section 4 of the NZBORA, the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

32        The NZBORA specifically identifies four types of civil and political rights, these are:

a)         life and security of the person;

b)        democratic and civil rights (which includes freedom of expression and freedom of movement)

c)         non-discrimination and minority rights;

d)        search, arrest and detention.

33        It has been assessed that there are no rights or freedoms under the NZBORA that could be affected by the proposed Bylaw.

34        Even if there were any relevant rights, the controls in the proposed Bylaw have been assessed as reasonable limits as allowed for in section 5 of the NZBORA. As such, the proposed Bylaw does not go beyond what is required to achieve its objectives and meets the requirements for making a bylaw.

Special Consultative Procedure

35        Section 156 of the LGA requires local authorities to use the special consultative procedure when making a bylaw if:

a)         the proposed bylaw concerns a matter identified in the local authority’s significance and engagement policy; or

b)        the local authority considers the proposed bylaw is likely to have a significant impact on the public.

36        The DCC water supply network is a significant public asset that enables an essential service for the community. Schedule 2 of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy includes ‘water collection, storage, treatment and distribution system’ in the list of assets considered by the DCC to be strategically important to achieve and promote the current or future well-being of the community and the priorities of the Strategic Framework. A bylaw is the most appropriate regulatory tool to protect this strategic asset and the service it provides, as well as ensuring it is operated in a manner that complies with national-level legislative and regulatory requirements.

37        For these reasons, use of the special consultative procedure as part of the process to make the proposed Bylaw is appropriate and recommended.

38        As part of the special consultative procedure, the Council must adopt a draft of the proposed Bylaw and a statement of proposal. The Council must make these available for public feedback for a period of not less than one month.

39        This report recommends the Council adopts the draft proposed Bylaw attached to this report as Attachment A and the draft Statement of Proposal attached to this report as Attachment B for public consultation.

40        If approved, public consultation on the Statement of Proposal and proposed Bylaw will be open from Monday 2 March 2026 to Thursday 2 April 2026. Provision will be made for members of the public to view the consultation material both online (via the DCC website) and at DCC libraries and service centres. Provision will be made for written submissions to be provided online and via other channels (e.g. by post).

41        Arrangements will be made for hearings if requested by submitters. A Hearings Panel will be convened for the purpose of considering submissions, and for the purpose of hearings if required. Hearings would likely take place in April 2026.

OPTIONS

Option One – make the recommended determinations and adopt the attached draft proposed Bylaw and draft Statement of Proposal for consultation (Recommended Option)

 

42        This option involves making the recommended LGA determinations and proceeding with public consultation on the attached draft proposed Bylaw and Statement of Proposal, as part of the process towards making a new water supply bylaw for Dunedin.

Advantages

·        Complies with the statutory requirements for bylaw-making and associated public consultation

·        Enables the DCC to progress towards making a new bylaw to manage use of the DCC water supply network that reflects current legislative and regulatory provisions

Disadvantages

·        None identified

Option Two – do not make the recommended determinations and/or do not adopt the attached draft proposed Bylaw and draft Statement of Proposal for consultation (Status Quo)

43        This option could involve either:

a)         not progressing towards making a new bylaw to manage use of the DCC water supply network; or

b)        asking staff to make changes to the draft proposed Bylaw and draft Statement of Proposal before returning to Council for LGA determinations and approvals at a later date.

Advantages

·        Enables the Council to request further analysis prior to making decisions

Disadvantages

·        Delays progress towards DCC putting in place a new water supply bylaw that reflects current legislative and regulatory provisions

NEXT STEPS

44        If the Council approves the recommended option, the proposed Bylaw and Statement of Proposal will be notified for public consultation in accordance with the requirements of the LGA. The consultation will be open from Monday 2 March 2026 to Thursday 2 April 2026.

45        Staff will summarise feedback received and prepare a report for consideration by the Hearings Committee. Staff will arrange hearings if requested by submitters.

46        After any hearings, staff will report back to the Council with the Hearing Committee’s recommendations and a final proposed Bylaw (incorporating any recommended amendments) for the Council’s consideration.

Signatories

Author:	Katherine Quill - Policy Analyst Scott Campbell - Regulation and Policy Team Leader
Authoriser:	Jared Oliver - Planning Manager John McAndrew - Head of 3 Waters David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026	51
⇩b	Draft Statement of Proposal: Proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026	95

 

 

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 ✔ ☐ ☐   This report has been prepared with reference to Dunedin’s strategic framework.
Māori Impact Statement There are no known specific impacts for Māori related to this report and the decisions sought. Māori individuals and organisations will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw via the public consultation process.
Sustainability The proposed Bylaw is intended to enable the DCC to manage use of the water supply network in a manner that supports the long-term sustainability of the water supply network and the environment.
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy This report and the recommended decisions have no immediate direct implications for these plans and strategies. However, the proposed Bylaw is intended to enable the DCC to manage use of the water supply network in a manner that supports the DCC to achieve the objectives set out in these plans and strategies (including, for example, level of service performance targets for water supply).
Financial considerations There are no known specific financial implications related to this report and the recommended decisions. The costs of public consultation and immediate implementation of the proposed Bylaw (if subsequently adopted) can be met from existing budgets. Additional funding (if required) for longer-term implementation activities would be sought through budgets included in the first Water Services Strategy in 2027.
Significance This report and the recommended decisions have been assessed as medium significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
Engagement – external The draft proposed Bylaw and draft Statement of Proposal have been reviewed by an external legal reviewer.   Staff have considered external feedback received on the Water Bylaw 2011 over a number of years while developing the proposed Bylaw.
Engagement - internal Staff from the following departments have contributed to the development of this report and/or the attached draft proposed Bylaw and draft Statement of Proposal: 3 Waters, City Growth, Governance, Building Services, Business Information Services, Council Communications and Marketing, and In-House Legal.
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc. None identified.
Conflict of Interest None identified.
Community Boards There are no known specific impacts for Community Boards related to this report and the decisions sought. Community Boards and their constituents will have the ability to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw via the public consultation process.

 

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

 

Administration of CNZ Creative Communities Scheme grants

Department: Ara Toi

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report recommends establishing a community-led Assessment Committee to be responsible for the assessment and decision-making for Creative New Zealand’s Creative Communities Scheme (CCS) grants.

2          This action ensures that the Dunedin City Council (DCC) meets Creative New Zealand requirements for administration of the grants scheme.

3          This action aligns DCC administration of the CCS grants with Creative New Zealand’s guidelines and with the processes followed by the majority of territorial authorities that administer CCS grants.

4          The following documents are attached for reference:

2025-28 DCC-CCS Agreement – Attachment A

CNZ Guidelines – Assessment Committees – Attachment B

Examples - CCS Assessment Committee – Attachment C

CCS Process – DCNZ Letter of Support – Attachment E

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Approves the establishment of a community-based Assessment Committee to undertake CCS assessment and decision-making, the composition of which is as follows:

i)          4 general community representatives, across a range of creative disciplines

ii)         1 youth representative (aged 24 or under)

iii)        1 mana whenua representative (or their nominee, if mana whenua do not have capacity to sit on the committee at the current time)

iv)       1 or 2 elected officials with appropriate arts knowledge and experience (Mayoral nomination, drawn from Council and/or Community Boards)

b)        Notes that CCS administration, applicant support, assessment of eligibility, and provision of information to applicants and the Assessment Committee would continue to be done by the Ara Toi/Creative Partnerships team.

BACKGROUND

5          The Creative New Zealand Creative Communities Scheme (CCS) was piloted in Dunedin in 2006.

6          An agreement to deliver the Creative Communities Scheme is signed between the Arts Council of New Zealand and DCC every three years. The current agreement runs from 1 July 2025 until 30 June 2028.

7          Creative New Zealand (CNZ) transfers funds to the Dunedin City Council to be disbursed as grants to support eligible creative activities within the Ōtepoti Dunedin city boundaries.

8          The allocation is calculated on a per annum base amount of $15,000 plus a per capita amount of $0.60 for the area and a GST component. In 2025/26 the full allocation is $93,420.

9          Prior to September 2025, CCS grants were administered under the same system used for the allocation of DCC Community Arts grants. 

10        Grant applications, assessments, and recommendations were provided to Grants Subcommittee members who make the final decision about the allocation of funds.

11        The Grants Subcommittee was disestablished after the October 2025 local body elections.

DISCUSSION

12        Proposed structure Council is to consider a new decision-making process for DCC grants in 2026.

13        CNZ provides comprehensive guidelines for the composition, role, and function of an Assessment Committee for the CCS grants and as a signatory to the funding agreement, DCC agrees to follow these guidelines. 

14        CNZ’s Creative Communities Scheme Senior Adviser, Rebecca Kunin, has provided a letter of support confirming the guidelines for assessment of CCS applications.

15        Drawing upon conversations with CCS administrators in other parts of the country, staff recommend the following structure for an Ōtepoti Dunedin CCS Assessment Committee.

16        The CCS Assessment Committee is set up as a community committee in accordance with CNZ requirements and comprises:

-        4 general community representatives, across a range of creative disciplines

-        1 youth representative (aged 24 or under)

-        1 mana whenua representative (or their nominee, if mana whenua do not have capacity to sit on the committee at the current time)

-        1 or 2 elected officials with appropriate arts knowledge and experience (Mayoral nomination, drawn from Council and/or Community Boards)

17        This committee composition ensures that decision-making is grounded in members’ knowledge of the city’s creative ecosystem and provides an informed and robust forum for decision-making.

18        Creative Partnerships staff have the knowledge and capacity to provide the necessary administrative and advisory support to the CCS Assessment Committee.

Timeframe and process

19        The new committee structure should be set up in time to allocate the second tranche of Creative New Zealand CCS funding, ie: before the end of the financial year 2025/26.

20        In the past, this funding round was administered between March and May because it needed to fit Council’s meeting schedule. There is no requirement to adhere strictly to this timeframe; CNZ allows grants rounds to be scheduled to suit individual communities.

21        The timing of future CCS assessment rounds will be evaluated to ensure that the timeframes work for applicants, committee members, and staff workloads.

22        Ara Toi/Creative Partnerships staff will work closely with new CCS Assessment Committee members to provide induction, support, and advice throughout the assessment process.

This would include hands-on workshops and provision of appropriate resources; CNZ also provides training for committee members.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option.

Council approves the establishment of a community-based Creative Communities Scheme Assessment Committee.

Impact assessment

23        This option has no impact on debt, rates, or city-wide and DCC emissions.

Advantages

·        Dunedin City Council meets Creative New Zealand requirements for the administration, assessment, and decision-making of the Creative Communities Scheme grants.

·        There is certainty about the grants processes for Creative New Zealand, local creative practitioners, and staff.

·        The establishment of an Assessment Committee and the induction and training of its members can start.

·        All members of the Assessment Committee are actively interested in and involved with diverse arts, creative, and cultural activities of the city.

·        Community involvement in the process has the potential to increase the visibility of these grants and the creative activities that take place in the city.

Disadvantages

·        There are no identified disadvantages.

Option Two – Status Quo

Council does not approve the establishment of a community-based Creative Communities Scheme Assessment Committee.

Impact assessment

24        This option has no impact on debt, rates, or city-wide and DCC emissions.

Advantages

·        There are no identified advantages to this option.

Disadvantages

·        Dunedin City Council does not meet the requirements of its agreement with Creative New Zealand.

·        There is no certainty about the CCS grants process for Creative New Zealand, local creative practitioners, or staff.

·        The establishment of an Assessment Committee and the induction and training of its members are delayed.

·        There is no guarantee of community involvement in the decision-making process as required by Creative New Zealand.

NEXT STEPS

25        If approved, Ara Toi/Creative Communities staff will:

·    start the process for setting up a community-based CCS Assessment Committee

·    develop and implement a communications plan to inform creative communities of the changes as early as possible

Signatories

Author:	Lisa Wilkie - Kaiārahi – Team Leader Creative Partnerships
Authoriser:	Mike Costelloe - General Manager, Arts, Culture & Economic Development

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	2025-2028 DCC-CCS Agreement	115
⇩b	CNZ Guidelines - Assessment Committees	125
⇩c	Examples - CCS Assessment Committee	129
⇩d	DCC_CCS Process	130
⇩e	CNZ Letter of Support	131

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
Fit with purpose of Local Government This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by communities. This decision promotes the cultural and social 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 recommended option contributes to the desired outcomes of the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan and the Festivals and Events Plan.
Māori Impact Statement The flexibility of the recommended option provides greater opportunity for Māori involvement in the assessment and decision-making processes for the Creative Communities Scheme.
Sustainability Greater community involvement in the decision-making process for the CCS grants promotes awareness of and inclusion in the Ōtepoti Dunedin’s creative eco-system, which encourages the growth of sustainable and beneficial creative networks.
Zero carbon No impact on city-wide or DCC emissions.
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy No impact on Levels of Service or Performance Measures.
Financial considerations No financial implications.
Significance This decision is considered low in terms of the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.
Engagement – external No formal external community engagement has been undertaken, although staff have spoken with current CCS representatives on the Grants Subcommittee. Staff have spoken with Creative New Zealand representatives and staff from other Territorial Authorities individually and in online hui.
Engagement - internal Staff have discussed this with Corporate Policy.
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc. No identified risks.
Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest.
Community Boards Community Board members may be invited to be part of a future Assessment Committee and creative activities supported by CCS grants take place in Community Board areas.

 

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

 

Dunedin Heritage Fund - Change of Balance Date

Department: Finance

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The Dunedin Heritage Fund (DHF) is a registered charity with the Department of Internal Affairs - Charities Services. The DHF currently has a reporting period ending 31 March in line with clause 6.3 of the Deed that established the DHF. This date does not align with the Dunedin City Council, (DCC), balance date of 30 June, and therefore creates inefficiencies for financial reporting.

2          This report proposes changing the balance date from 31 March to 30 June to align with the DCC financial year.

3          To make this change, the Deed requires Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (The Trust) and the DCC to agree to change the balance date from 31 March to 30 June.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Approves changing the balance date of the Dunedin Heritage Fund from 31 March to 30 June.

b)        Notes that if approved by Council, staff will seek approval from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and then will advise the Charities Services of the change in balance date within three months of the change being approved.

BACKGROUND

4          The DHF was established on 26 August 1993 by a Deed between the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and DCC (DHF Deed). A copy of the DHF Deed is attached as Attachment A.

5          The DHF Deed is between DCC and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (now, through legislation, called Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga).

6          The DHF is a registered charity with the Department of Internal Affairs - Charities Services. Charities have legal duties under a range of legislation, including the Charities Act 2005. Each year DHF is required to submit audited or reviewed financial statements within 6 months of balance date to Charities Services. The DHF currently has a balance date of 31 March.

7          As the DHF is considered a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) the financial statements of DHF are consolidated into the Annual Report for the DCC Group.

8          The DCC has a balance date of 30 June.

DISCUSSION

9          This report outlines the proposal to change the DHF balance date from 31 March to 30 June, effective for the 2025/26 reporting period.

10        The primary reason for this change is to align the DHF's financial reporting period with the DCC Group’s financial year-end. This alignment would streamline reporting processes and improve administrative efficiency, particularly around consolidated reporting, and audit/review coordination. Through aligning the balance dates, the change is expected to reduce duplication of work and enhance the consistency and comparability of financial information.

11        This proposed change would mean the 2025/26 financial year will become a one-off, extended 15-month reporting period covering 1 April 2025 to 30 June 2026. While this may cause some initial confusion during the transitional year (particularly in terms of comparative analysis and year-on-year reporting) it is a one-time adjustment that will result in improved alignment with Group financial reporting.

12        This change will also affect the statutory filing deadline for the DHF’s Annual Performance Report with Charities Services, shifting from the current 30 September deadline to 31 December.

13        This change will not affect the operations of DHF, including the timing and administration of funding rounds, which will proceed as currently scheduled.

14        Clause 6.3 of the DHF Deed states that: “Council shall keep a good and proper account of all moneys received and expended by the Fund, and shall produce an annual balance sheet showing the assets and liabilities of the Fund as at 31st day of March each year.”

15        Clause 13 of the DHF Deed states: “The Trust and the Council may by agreement amend the terms of this Deed provided that such amendments do not conflict with or detract from the charitable objects of the Fund.”

16        The decision to amend the balance date is effectively an amendment to clause 6.3 of the Deed and requires approval from both Council and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga to amend the balance date from 31 March to 30 June.

17        If Council approves the change of balance date, staff will also seek approval from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga to the change of balance date.

18        Charities Services is not required to pre-approve this change, as the reporting period will not exceed 15 months. Staff will notify the Charities Commission of the balance date within three months of the change being approved, in line with the Charity Services requirements.

19        The DHF performance report will continue to be subject to an audit or review.

OPTIONS

20        There are two options to consider, changing the date to align with the DCC 30 June balance date or staying with the status quo of the current balance date of 31 March.

Option One – Recommended Option to change the date to 30 June.

Advantages

·        Streamlining reporting processes.

·        Improve administrative efficiency, particularly around consolidated reporting and audit/review coordination.

·        Reduce duplication of work and enhance the consistency and comparability of financial information.

Disadvantages

·        There are no identified disadvantages.

Option Two – Status Quo

Advantages

·        There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

·        The current balance date requires additional time to process year end consolidations for the DCC annual report.

NEXT STEPS

21        If Council approves the change in balance date to 30 June, then approval will be sought from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.

22        If Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga approves the change in balance date to 30 June, staff will advise Charity Services of the new balance date.

Signatories

Author:	Hayden McAuliffe - Financial Services Manager
Authoriser:	David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development Karilyn Canton - Chief In-House Legal Counsel

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Dunedin Heritage Fund Deed - 1993	138

 

 

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 recommended option would improve alignment with DCC financial and reporting timeframes.
Māori Impact Statement No known impacts for Māori.
Sustainability No implications for sustainability.
Zero carbon No impacts for zero carbon.
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy The recommended option would improve alignment with DCC financial and reporting timeframes.
Financial considerations There are no financial implications.
Significance This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
Engagement – external There has been no external engagement on this report.
Engagement - internal Finance, Legal and City Development have been engaged in preparing this report.
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc. No known risks.
Conflict of Interest No known conflict of interests.
Community Boards There are no implications for Community Boards.

 

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

 

Grants Subcommittee Delegation

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This paper seeks Council approval of the Grants Subcommittee delegation for the 2025/2028 triennium.

2          The proposed delegation (attachment A) reflects Council’s previously confirmed governance structure for grants decision-making.

3          If approved, the 2026 Committee Structure and Delegations Manual will be updated to reflect the new Committee Structure and associated delegations.

4          As this is an administrative report, there is no summary of considerations.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Approves the Grants Subcommittee delegation for the 2025-2028 triennium.

 

BACKGROUND

5          Under Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002, mayors have the authority to establish committees of the Council and appoint their respective Chairs and Deputy Chairs.

6          Section 41A does not prevent Council from discharging or reconstituting committees, appointing additional committees, or amending Chairperson appointments in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Act.

7          Under the Act, the Mayor is an ex-officio member of every committee of Council, with full voting rights when present.

8          On 12 February 2026 Council resolved to confirm its preferred governance structure for grants decisions as:

 

 

 

 

	Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Marie Laufiso): That the Council:   e)  Confirms its preferred Governance Structure for Grant Decisions is a Grants Subcommittee + Staff Delegations + Council Oversight where: a)     Staff allocate small grants under delegation. b)    A Grants Subcommittee (which include community representatives) allocates mid-tier grants, multi-year and large grants. Division The Council voted by division   For:              Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell and Steve Walker (9). Against:         Crs Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (5). Abstained:   Nil   The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5   Motion carried (CNL/2026/021)
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Mayor Sophie Barker): That the Council:   e)      Confirms its preferred Governance Structure for Grant Decisions is a          Grants Subcommittee + Staff Delegations + Council Oversight where: i)     Staff allocate small grants under delegation. ii)   A Grants Subcommittee (which include community representatives)           allocates mid-tier grants, multi-year and large grants. Division The Council voted by division   For:               Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell and Steve Walker (8). Against:       Crs Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (6). Abstained:   Nil   The division was declared CARRIED by 8 votes to 6   Motion carried (CNL/2026/023)

DISCUSSION

9          the proposed delegation gives effect to Council’s decision to establish a Grants Subcommittee with responsibility for allocation mid-tier, multi-yer and large grants.

10        The delegation clarifies the respective roles of staff, the Subcommittee, and Council, ensuring   appropriate oversight while enabling efficient and transparatent grant decision-making.

OPTIONS

11        There are no options presented in this report. The report gives effect to a previous Council resolution.

NEXT STEPS

12        Staff will undertake and Expression of Interest process to seek community representatives and invite mana whenua to nominate a representative.

13        Selection of community representatives will be undertaken by the elected members of the Grants Subcommittee. A recommendation will then be reported to Council for approval.

Signatories

Author:

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Delegation	149

 

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

 

Council 24 February 2026

 

Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

That the Council excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting (pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987) 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  Confirmation of  the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 11 November 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.	.
C2  Confirmation of  the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 11 December 2025 - 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.	.
C3  Confidential Council Action List Update	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.

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.