Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 April 2026

6 Ngā Pūrongo / Reports

6.1 Adoption of Statement of Proposal for Fees & Charges for 2026/27

File Number: A5614417

Author: Angie Thomas, Acting Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser: Ken Macdonald, Chief Financial Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To adopt a schedule of fees and charges for the 2026/27 financial year.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Under the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA), Council is required to review fees and charges annually.

· The adoption of fees and charges must occur prior to the start of the financial year to which they apply.

· In most cases, increases are limited to the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) inflation factor which is forecast at 2.4% for 2026/27. Exceptions are discussed in this report.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council adopts the Statement of Proposal to consult on the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2026/27.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Council reviews and adjusts its fees and charges on an annual basis.

Although many of our fees and charges may be set by Council resolution under section 150 of the Local Government Act 2002, some must follow a formal process with public consultation in accordance with section 83 (the Special Consultative Procedure or SCP).

We therefore carry out the annual review of fees and charges as follows:

1. A review of fees and charges is conducted and an inflationary adjustment applied to allow for any increases that may affect the goods or service. This review also allows any other fees or charges to be altered, amended or renewed if required. A Statement of Proposal (SOP) is prepared for consultation alongside the proposed schedule of fees and charges. A consultation period of four weeks for written submissions is followed by hearing of verbal submissions (if required) and deliberations. The council will then consider any further changes and adoption of the schedule in June with an enactment date of 1 July 2026.

All adjustments are consistent with Council’s decision as part of the Annual Plan 2026/27 to adjust fees annually in line with changing circumstances and specifically in line with inflation. They ensure consistency with the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

In general, fees have been adjusted by inflation (LGCI) which is forecast at 2.4% for the 2026/27 year).

Exceptions are:

· Some fees and infringements are set by statute (e.g. Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012) and are therefore not adjustable.

Inflationary adjustments are proposed for the following (refer to the Schedule of Fees and Charges attachment):

· Dog registrations, other fees, impounding fees

· Building consents

· Vehicle crossing application and inspection fees

· Bylaw enforcement

· Cemeteries

· Environmental health licences

· Fire prevention

· Food act

· Gambling venue fees

· Mobile shop, street stall and hawkers licences

· Alfresco dining

· Leases and licenses of Reserves

· Legal services

· Libraries (organisation borrower)

· Official information – operative District Plan

· Property information - staff time, physical map requests, postponement fees

· Resource consents

· Transport network

· Applications and inspections relating to works on Council infrastructure (stormwater, wastewater and water)

No changes are proposed for the following:

· Hokianga Ferry charges

· Official information - LGOIMA requests, supply of publications, agendas, minutes, photocopying and scanning charges)

· Property information – digital data supply

· Rubbish disposal at transfer stations

· Venues for hire

No change for legislated fees:

· Amusement devices

· Alcohol licencing

The fees and charges recommended for adjustments are detailed below:

Application for resource consent, designation or heritage orders	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
Simple s127 change (minor changes, no parties affected, no engineering assessment)	$704.00	$1,000.00	Fee increase. Aligns the deposit with the average cost of processing these applications over the last five years.
Variation/cancellation of consent condition (s127) with engineering	$1,264.00	$2,800.00	Fee increase. Word change from Change to variation. Reflects the additional engineering time required for these applications.
Simple Land Use. Single zone rule breach or no Engineering assessment required	$1,575.00	$2,500.00	Fee increase. Aligns the deposit with the average cost of processing these applications over the last five years.
Complex Land Use. May include 3waters (water, stormwater, wastewater), earthworks or traffic breaches. Development in Natural Hazard Zones or Flooding and Coastal erosion.	$2,625.00	$3,500.00	Fee increase. Aligns the fee with the actual average processing cost and reflects additional specialist review (3 waters, earthworks, hazards etc.) typically required.
Discharge to land (less than 3m²⁾	$2,834.00	$1,200.00	Fee decrease. Previous fee was significantly higher than actual processing cost, so the fee is being reduced to better match real costs. Additional wording to include (less than 3m²)
Combined Subdivision and Land Use	$5,143.00	$8,000.00	Fee increase. Aligns with average cost of processing these applications over the last five years and reflects the higher average processing time when both consent types are assessed together.
Combined Land Use and Discharge	-	$3,700.00	New fee. Introduced to cover a common application type previously not specifically listed.
Subdivision 1–4 lots	$3,044.00	$5,000.00	Fee increase. Based on working the average cost of a 1-4 lot subdivision over the last five years.
Subdivision 5–8 lots	$5,038.00	$6,000.00	Fee increase. Based on working the average cost of a 5-8 lot subdivision over the last five years.
Subdivision 9+ lots	$6,823.00	$7,000.00	Fee increase. Based on working the average cost of a 9+ lot subdivision over the last five years.

Limited notification for resource consents, notices of requirement and heritage orders	Current	Proposed
Land use and subdivision; combined land use and subdivision; notices of requirement; heritage orders; discharge to land	$5,248.00	$6,000.00	Fee increase. Aligns deposit with actual costs of preparing and managing notification processes and reduces reliance on additional invoicing.

Hearings	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
Hearing for Limited or Public Notified application	$2,028.00	$10,000.00	New fee. Hearings are significantly more expensive than the current deposit, often involving commissioners, legal advice, and multiple staff. The higher deposit better reflects real costs and reduces the risk of unpaid invoices.
Hearing for Objections to Conditions	$2,028.00	$2,077.00	New fee. Updated to reflect current processing costs.

Monitoring	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
Monitoring of Resource Consent conditions. This may include site inspections and/or desktop checks to deem compliance.	$403.00	Actual costs	Fee change to actual costs. Monitoring work varies widely depending on the consent. Charging actual costs ensures applicants only pay for the monitoring actually required.
Monitoring of Permitted Activities under s180 of the Planning Act 2026		Actual costs	New fee. Introduced to support new legislative requirements under the Planning Act.

Approvals and certificates – instalment	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
~~Sec 221 (consent notice),~~ Sec 222 (completion), Sec 223 (survey plan)	$274.00	$281.00	Removal of Sec 221 (consent notice) wording. Fixes a technical error in the existing schedule.
224(c) Certificate – no engineering conditions (Includes s221 Consent Notice) Note: Your certificate will not be issued until all previous invoices relating to the underlying consent have been paid (SUB, COM, EPA etc.)	$642.00	$657.00	Fixes a technical error in the existing schedule. Additional wording of (Includes s221 Consent Notice). Note: Your certificate will not be issued until all previous invoices relating to the underlying consent have been paid (SUB, COM, EPA etc).
224(c) Certificate – with engineering conditions (Includes s221 Consent Notice) Note: Your certificate will not be issued until all previous invoices relating to the underlying consent have been paid (SUB, COM, EPA etc.)	$1,192.00	$1,221.00	Fixes a technical error in the existing schedule. Additional wording of (Includes s221 Consent Notice). Note: Your certificate will not be issued until all previous invoices relating to the underlying consent have been paid (SUB, COM, EPA etc).
Deemed permitted boundary activities and deemed permitted marginal or temporary activities	$504.00	$600.00	Fee increase. Based on the average cost of a Deemed permitted boundary/marginal/temporary application over the last five years.
Creation of right-of-way under Sec 348 Local Government Act	Actual costs	$500.00	Fee change from Actual costs to $500. Provides an upfront deposit to reduce Council’s exposure to unpaid processing costs.
Engineering Plan Approvals (RMAEPA)	$385.00	$500.00	Fee increase. Reflects the actual cost of engineering review and approval.

Approvals and certificates - instalment	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
Pre-lodgement, pre-application, concept development ~~(first 30 min free)~~	$345.00	$353.00	Reflects the average staff time required to prepare and attend these meetings. Removal of, first 30 minutes no charge.

Other Approvals, Certificates & Fixed Fees	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
Section 139 Certificate of Compliance, Section 139(A) Existing Use Certificate	$1,339.00	$1,500.00	Fee increase. Reflects the average processing cost of these applications (s139 and 139A) over the last five years.
Certificate of Permitted Activity Under s180 of the Planning Act 2026. Actual processing costs will be calculated and invoiced once the certificate has been issued.		$516.00	New fee. Introduced to support the new planning legislation replacing parts of the RMA.

Liquor Compliance Certificate	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
Certificate of Compliance Liquor application. Actual processing costs will be calculated and invoiced once the certificate has been issued.	$490.00	$502.00	Additional wording to reflect actual process. Actual processing costs will be calculated and invoiced once the certificate has been issued.

Hourly Processing Charges	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
Principal Planner, Team Leader Resource Consents Engineering and Manager Resource Consents	$221.00	$226.00	Provides clearer descriptions of staff roles associated with each hourly rate. Team Leader Resource Consents Engineering role added.
Team Leader Resource Consents	$210.00	$215.00	Provides clearer descriptions of staff roles associated with each hourly rate. Resource Consents title added to Team Leader.
Technology Fee (Per RMA Application)		$120.00	New fee. Helps recover the cost of digital systems used to process and manage consent applications. New fee.

Vehicle crossings	Current	Proposed	Reasoning
Vehicle crossing application and vehicle crossing inspection fee (~~Includes first initial site visit and application fee~~. A further two inspections are required (pre-pour and final inspections $277 per inspection). Any additional inspections will be charged separately ($277 per inspection)	$308.00	$450.00	Fee increase. Aligns with the average cost of processing and inspecting vehicle crossings. Removal of wording, (Includes first initial site visit and application fee. Change from $205 to $277. Moved from Building Consents to Resource Consents.
Vehicle crossing inspection fee	$205.00 (per inspection)	$277.00	Reflects actual inspection costs. Moved from Building Consents to Resource Consents.
~~Re-application fee for expired approvals~~	~~$79.00~~	~~$81.00~~	No longer required administratively. Moved from Building Consents to Resource Consents.

Other fees and charges 2026/27 amendments

The majority of fees and charges have been adjusted by a 2.4% inflationary increase, unless set by legislation etc:

Rubbish Disposal at Transfer Stations

Rubbish at transfer station	Current	Proposed
Per bag (standard 65L)	$3.00	$4.00	To align with Government imposed charges, operational costs and compliance requirements.
Oversized bag (130L)	$6.00	$7.00	To align with Government imposed charges, operational costs and compliance requirements.
Wheelie bin (240L)	$11.00	$12.50	To align with Government imposed charges, operational costs and compliance requirements.
Loose material per m³	$46.00	$52.00	To align with Government imposed charges, operational costs and compliance requirements.
Compacted material per m³	$74.50	$84.00	To align with Government imposed charges, operational costs and compliance requirements.

Building Consents

This has been moved from Building Consents to Resource Consents.

Vehicle crossings	Current
Vehicle crossing application and vehicle crossing inspection fee (Includes first initial site visit and application fee). A further two inspections are required (pre-pour and final inspections $205 per inspection). Any additional inspections will be charged separately ($205 per inspection)	$308.00
Vehicle crossing inspection fee	$205.00 (per inspection)
Re-application fee for expired approvals.	$79.00

Libraries

Borrowing	Current	Proposed
Organisation borrower (limited users)	$33.00	$0.00	To be removed as this fee has not been used in 5 years
Replacement borrower card	$2.20	$2.00	Minor change
Inter-loan search	From $6	From $10.00	Due to increased postage charges
Book repairs	From $5.30	From $5.50	Minor change

Monitoring and Compliance

Monitoring and Compliance fees	Current	Proposed
Monitoring fee – monitoring of resource consents, this may include site visit(s) and/or desktop assessment.		Actual Costs where site visits are required.	New fee. This is now separated into actual costs, where a site visit is required to monitor the conditions. Previously applicants were paying a flat fee of $403 for up to 2 site visits. Several elements of the Resource consent may only require the customer to send things to Council, or can be confirmed via a desktop assessment.
The cost of staff time and expense associated with investigation, remediation (if necessary), and complaints can be recovered for significant non-compliance with the District Plan, Resource Consents or other legislation, or for repeat offending where environmental impacts are considered to be more than minor.		Actual and reasonable costs based on officers’ hourly charge out rate.	New fee. The actual and reasonable costs of significant or complex investigations can be recovered as administrative costs under Section 36 of the Resource Management Act where significant Council Officer time is required to remedy breaches and ensure compliance with the RMA and/or District Plan or other legislative requirements. The purpose is to disincentivise people from committing breaches of their Resource Consent or, when they do, quickly remedying them and not requiring Council staff to spend significant amounts of time investigating and ensuring compliance.
Compliance Manager - per hour	$236.00	$242.00	Moved from Building Consents hourly rates.
Monitoring and Compliance Officer - per hour	$163.00	$167.00	Moved from Resource Consents Planning Technician and Monitoring Officer Hourly processing changes.

Certificates, license and permits

Environmental health licenses	Current	Proposed
Health (mortuaries and septic tank cleaners) This fee covers the cost of processing the application. New applications are reviewed by building, planning, and environmental health teams to ensure all requirements are met. If requirements are not met, additional fees may apply for planning and building teams additional processing time.	$366.00	$375.00	Removed wording Campgrounds

Food Act	Current	Proposed
Food Control Plan (FCP)
Template FCP registration Application for new registration of FCP (fee includes up to 2.75 hours of processing time, supply of thermometer and printed food safety plan).	$325.00	$350.00	Change aligns with inflation and in line with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees. Additional wording to reflect actual process. Application for new registration of FCP (fee includes up to 2.75 hours of processing time, supply of thermometer and printed food safety plan).
Thermometer	$32.00	$35.00	Aligns with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees.
Additional food control plan document and record blanks	$30.00	$45.00	Additional wording and record blanks.
Additional processing time Fee for additional time for processing the application.	$163.00	$168.00	Description added. Fee for additional time for processing the application.
FCP verification fixed fee Verification including site visits and compliance checks with FCP (includes up to 3.5hrs of processing and travelling time).	$569.00	$595.00	Change aligns with inflation and in line with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees. Description added. Verification including site visits and compliance checks with FCP (includes up to 3.5hrs of processing and travelling time).
Failure to attend scheduled verification	$163.00	$249.50	Many operators do not show up onsite for their verification which results in loss of time and impacts the officers work plan. This fee would act as a deterrent for operators and prevent them from doing this.
Proposed New Fees	Current	Proposed
Corrective action follow up		$249.50	To cover actual time to follow up on a CAR. Aligns with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees. Where the verification results in the issue of a Corrective Action Request (CAR) that requires a return visit, this is follow-up visit to check remedial actions and every additional visit is subject to additional compliance and monitoring fees.
Cancellation of scheduled verification less than 24 hours notice		$168.00	To cover actual time where a verification has been cancelled at short notice. Many operators cancel the verification within 24 hours’ notice which impacts the officers work plan for the week, this would act as a deterrent for operators and prevent them from doing this.
Replacement laminated certificate		$20.00	New fee – covers actual costs involved with providing a replacement certificate. Many operators request another copy of their registration certificate because they have misplaced their original one or damaged it.
Complaint driven investigation resulting in enforcement Justified complaint requiring investigation by FSO.		$250.00	Aligns with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees. Additional description: Justified complaint requiring investigation by FSO.

National Programme (NP)	Current	Proposed
NP registration	$263.00	$300.00	Aligns with other Council’s re: same processing time. Actual costs.
NP renewal (renewal required every 2 years)	$150.00	$197.00	Aligns with other Council’s re: same processing time. Actual costs.
Failure to attend scheduled verification	$163.00	$249.50	Many operators do not show up onsite for their verification which results in loss of time and impacts the officers work plan. This fee would act as a deterrent for operators and prevent them from doing this.
Proposed new fees	Current	Proposed
NP verification fixed fee - NP1 (2.5 hours of processing and travelling time)		$406.00	Change aligns with inflation and in line with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees.
NP verification fixed fee - NP2 (3.5 hours of processing and travelling time)		$525.00	Change aligns with inflation and in line with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees. NP2 and 3 take longer processing time so actual costs is more.
NP verification fixed fee - NP3 (3.5 hours of processing and travelling time)		$525.00	Change aligns with inflation and in line with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees. NP2 and 3 take longer processing time so actual costs is more.
Cancellation of scheduled verification less than 24 hours notice		$168.00	Many operators cancel the verification less than 24 hours’ notice which impacts the officers work plan for the week, this would act as a deterrent for operators and prevent them from doing this.
Corrective action follow up		$249.50	Aligns with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees. Where the verification results in the issue of a Corrective Action Request (CAR) that requires a return visit, this is follow-up visit to check remedial actions and every additional visit is subject to additional compliance and monitoring fees.
Complaint driven investigation resulting in enforcement Justified complaint requiring investigation by FSO.		$250.00	Aligns with other Council’s (WDC and KDC) fees. Additional description: Justified complaint requiring investigation by FSO.

Licensed Fish Receivers

As per clause 8 of The Maritime Facilities Bylaw regarding Commercial Operators:

Clause 8(2) All Commercial Operators must pay any applicable Fees for the use of Maritime Facilities, including moorings, as set out in the Council’s Fees and Charges Schedule. This may include fees for specific types of activities or operations that may be carried out by Commercial Operators.

Clause 8(3) No Commercial Operator may use any Maritime Facilities unless they have paid the required Fees under clause 8(2) of this Bylaw.

Clause 8(4) The above clauses shall have no effect if the Council has not included Fees for the use of Maritime Facilities by Commercial Operators within the Council’s Fees and Charges Schedule.

This bylaw came into force on 13 February 2025.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The reason for the recommendation is to ensure an adopted schedule of fees and charges is in place prior to the start of the 2026/27 financial year.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Forecast revenue from the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2026/27 is recognised in the budget adopted as part of the Annual Plan for 2026/27.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Licensed Fish Receivers - A5643724 ⇩

2. Fees & Charges Schedule - (under separate cover)

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low Significance
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Local Government Act, Resource Management Act
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	District-wide relevance
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	No specific implications.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	No specific demographic identified.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The proposals outlined are in intended to meet the funding arrangements specified in the Revenue and Financing Policy. Adjustments as proposed support cost recovery intentions for the relevant activities.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 April 2026

6.2 Local Government Reform Programme

File Number: A5619316

Author: Roger Ackers, Head of Strategic Reform Initiatives

Authoriser: Guy Holroyd, Chief Executive Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek a decision from Council on whether to participate in the proposed Northland Local Government Reform programme, including approval of the staged approach, governance arrangements, indicative timeline, and associated budget provisions, as considered by the Northland Mayoral Forum on 27 February 2026.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· In November 2025 the government released a discussion document setting out draft proposals for reform of local government with the aim of simplifying the system. The reform proposals provide for interim governance arrangements and a process for each region to develop a Regional Reorganisation Plan (RRP), which sets out bespoke local government arrangements in each region.

· Following discussion at Northland Forward Together (December 2025), the Chief Executives Forum and the Mayoral Forum, as well as engagement with the Minister for Local Government, on 5 February 2026 Northland councils publicly confirmed a shared position that local government reform should be progressed through a “By Northland, For Northland” approach.

· Proceeding with this approach allows us to proactively advance the future of regional governance in Northland, with the aim of delivering material benefit to services and outcomes achieved through local government.

· This approach was further considered at the Mayoral Forum on 27 February 2026 where members agreed to take the proposal to establish a Local Government Reform programme to their respective councils for consideration.

· This report recommends that council approve the following:

o Governance arrangements and programme structure for a Local Government Reform Programme.

o Draft Terms of Reference for the proposed Governance Steering Group and External Advisory Group to oversee a Local Government Reform Programme.

o A placeholder budget for a Local Government Reform Programme for the remainder of the 25/26 Financial Year and the 26/27 Financial Year.

o An indicative timeline that, subject to detailed planning, could allow for a new governance structure(s) to be in place ahead of the October 2028 local government elections.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Far North District Council:

a) Approves the establishment of a staged programme for Local Government Reform as set out in this report.

b) Approves the governance structure set out in this report, including the establishment of a Local Government Reform Steering Group and External Advisory Group.

c) Endorse the Mayor of Whangārei District Council as Chair of the Local Government Reform Steering Group.

d) Nominates the Mayor and councillors _____ and ______ as members of the Local Government Reform Steering Group.

e) Approve the Draft Terms of Reference for the Local Government Reform Governance Steering Group (Attachment 1).

f) Approve the Draft Terms of Reference for the Local Government Reform External Advisory Group (Attachment 2).

g) Approve the indicative timeline set out in this report, which subject to detailed planning once the programme is established, would enable a new governance structure(s) to be in place for the October 2028 local government election.

h) Approve the allocation of $31,250 to meet FNDC’s share of programme costs for the remainder of the 2025/26 financial year.

i) Approve the allocation of $250,000 to meet the placeholder budget of $1,000,000 in its 2026/27 Annual Plan, noting that this amount is indicative only and subject to further detailed planning and refinement.

j) Agree to proceed with the proposed programme and to fund a third of the costs, as outlined in this report, rather than a quarter if only three Northland councils are participating.

k) Agree that the programme approach needs to be reviewed if fewer than three Northland Councils agree to proceed with the programme as proposed.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

In November 2025 the government released a discussion document setting out draft proposals for reform of local government. The primary objective (as per the Regulatory Impact Statement) is to initiate a locally led process to simplify and streamline local government structures and service delivery, in a way that supports the implementation of resource management reforms.

The draft proposal was to remove regional councillors and establish a Combined Territories Board (CTB) of Mayors. There would potentially also be a role for a Crown Commissioner on the CTB. The CTB would, among other things, need to develop a Regional Reorganisation Plan (RRP) with a recommended delivery model for council services across the region within two years of being established.

Following discussion at Northland Forward Together (December 2025), the Chief Executives Forum and the Mayoral Forum, and engagement with the Minister for Local Government, on 5 February 2026 Northland councils publicly confirmed a shared position that local government reform should be progressed through a “By Northland, For Northland” approach.

The matter was further considered at the Mayoral Forum on 27 February 2026 where the establishment of a local government reform programme, including a recommended governance and programme structure, indicative project timeline and budget was endorsed for consideration by each council.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

If the programme moves forward as proposed in this report it is critical that a clear perspective on what is important and what the Northland Councils want to achieve from local government reform is developed at a programme level across the councils.

A key framing of the proposed approach is that it is ‘By Northland, For Northland’ and proactively advancing the future of regional governance in Northland.

Further to this, the opportunity to provide better outcomes for Northland is the fundamental driver. Local government reform provides an opportunity to review existing local government arrangements with the aim of delivering better outcomes for Northland. Proposed objectives, which can be refined over time, include to:

· provide material benefit to services and outcomes delivered - including greater affordability, effectiveness and operational efficiency;

· improve local representation - fair and effective representation of communities of interest across all of Northland;

· ensure roles and delivery are at the right scale for efficient and effective system performance and outcomes;

· enable effective and visible regional leadership and governance for Northland; and

· provide financially sustainable delivery of quality services into the future.

Staged Approach

It is recommended that the programme be staged based on key decision points to ensure that checks and balances are in place before progressing to next steps. Key decisions would be referred to each council for consideration before progressing (e.g. approval to consult on a draft RRP and recommendations to the Local Government Commission / Minister). Timeframes are indicative, and subject to detailed programme planning in Stage 3.

Proposed stages and indicative timeframes are summarised below:

· Stage 1 (completed) - Early engagement, regional alignment, and council submissions on the draft reform proposals, including confirmation of a shared position that reform should be progressed through a “By Northland, For Northland” approach (December 2025 – February 2026).

· Stage 2 (in progress) - Establishing the governance and advisory arrangements, programme structure, indicative timeline and provisional budget (February – April 2026).

· Stage 3 – Implement and resource the programme structure, detailed project planning and resourcing, including approaches to iwi, hapū and community participation (April – June 2026).

· Stage 4 - Assessment of current state and options for future delivery models, including stocktake of services, functions and structures and options analysis (June – December 2026).

· Stage 5 - Preferred option and draft Regional Reorganisation Plan and supporting evidence (including representation review and assessment against legislative requirements) (December 2026 to February 2027).

· Stage 6 – Engagement and public consultation on draft RRP and representation review (February to May 2027).

· Stage 7 – Consider feedback and finalise and submit Northland’s recommended RRP (including supporting evidence) to Minister / Local Government Commission (June to September 2027).

· Stage 8 – Local Government Commission / Ministerial decision and (subject to approval) establish transition body (October 2027 – February 2028).

· Stage 9 - Establish governance and administrative arrangements to ensure a functioning local government entity/entities capable of meeting statutory, governance, and operational requirements is in place ahead of the election (February to October 2028).

· Stage 10 - Local Body Elections in Northland (September to Saturday 14 October 2028).

· Stage 11 – Full execution of the Transition Plan and Implementation Scheme (November 2028 onwards).

Recommended Governance structure and draft terms of reference

At the meeting of 27 February 2026, the Mayoral Forum considered and endorsed for consideration by each council the programme structure outlined below, and Draft Terms of Reference for the Local Government Reform Steering Group and Local Government Reform External Advisory Group.

The recommended programme governance and operational structure are set out below.

Local Government Reform Steering Group

It is recommended that the programme be overseen by a Local Government Reform Steering Group made up of the Mayors and NRC Chair plus two elected members from each council, and one representative from the Department of Internal Affairs (a total of 13 members).

The core role of this group is to provide collaborative, strategic oversight and regional leadership. It is not proposed that this group has delegated decision-making powers but would make recommendations as required to participating councils on Regional Reorganisation Plans and next steps. It is proposed that the Mayor of Whangārei District Council act as Chair of the Local Government Reform Steering Group. Draft Terms of Reference for the Local Government Reform Steering Group are set out in Attachment 1.

It is recommended that the Steering Group Terms of Reference now be approved and that Council, via this report, nominate the two elected members to accompany the Mayor on this Steering Group.

Local Government Reform External Advisory Group

It is recommended that the programme be supported by an External Advisory Group (EAG) that would provide independent advice for the programme and support the Local Government Reform Steering Group to develop a robust proposal and evidence base for local government reorganization that meets central government and Northland’s objectives and quality standards.

It is proposed that four members be appointed through a transparent, merit-based process that ensures the right balance of independence, skills and expertise, and that the Mayor of Whangārei District Council be appointed as an observer to the group. It is not proposed that the EAG have delegated decision-making powers. Draft Terms of Reference for the External Advisory Group are set out in Attachment 2.

It is recommended that the EAG Terms of Reference now be approved.

Programme support

It is recommended that the programme be supported by a dedicated programme manager and cross-council project team, reporting to the Chief Executive’s Forum. The Chief Executive’s Forum will provide operational oversight, resourcing, and the link between governance and operations, and report to the Local Government Reform Steering Group. The programme manager would be appointed by the Chief Executive’s Forum and would provide project management and reporting functions. The cross-council project team would be made up of staff from each council (membership to be confirmed) and would implement the project plan and provide technical data and analysis. The appropriate balance between internal and external capacity to resource the programme will be determined during stage 3 (detailed programme planning).

Iwi, hapū and community participation

Iwi, hapū and community participation is an important consideration for the project and reflects the role of Māori as tāngata whenua alongside the wider community. Engagement with relevant iwi, hapū and community groups can support informed decision-making by providing local context, perspectives, and insights that contribute to durable and well-supported project outcomes.

As part of Stage Three project planning and resourcing, approaches to iwi, hapū and community participation will be assessed as a key element of the work programme. This assessment will propose, as an outcome of Stage Three, any necessary refinements to governance, advisory, and engagement arrangements in place or in development, to ensure iwi, hapū and community perspectives are appropriately captured and inform the Local Government Reform programme.

Option One: Council approves the Local Government reform program

Council approves the Local Government reform programme and associated recommendations (relating to the programme structure, indicative timeline, provisional budget, terms of reference and nominates council steering group members)

Advantages

· Council will have a proactive role in developing a Regional Reorganisation Plan in collaboration with other participating councils.

· A Far North District Council perspective will add knowledge and expertise to the process.

Disadvantages

· Costs and resourcing / staff and elected member time required.

Option Two: Council does not approve the Local Government reform programme and associated recommendations

The Far North District Council elects not to participate in the regional programme.

Advantages

No costs or demand on staff / councillor time or other council resource.

Disadvantages

· The process will lack a Far North District Council perspective, knowledge and expertise

· Signals that Northland councils are not unified or aligned on reforms (contrary to previous public statements)

· The perception that council does not have an interest in improving local government system in Northland.

Risk Management

A programme of this significance on the proposed timeframes is a significant undertaking for Northland Councils and presents several risks - as well as opportunities. The programme will establish robust risk management processes. An initial assessment of risks is presented below.

Risk Description	Likelihood	Impact	Potential Mitigation/Control
Central government decisions on LG reform (e.g. local government functions, and CTB establishment) could impact the programme	High	High	- Regular engagement with key officials and Ministers - Initial stages of project are preparatory and advisory (no regrets) - Agile programme approach enables adaptation if necessary as national settings become clear.
Delays establishing governance or work programme impact on timeline	High	High	- Early testing and approval, clear milestones, regular reporting,
Inconsistent council engagement or commitment	High	High	- Agreed roles, responsibilities, and protocols endorsed by CE Forum, recognising capacity constraints
Inadequate engagement of iwi and hapū	High	High	- Stage 3 prioritises gaining agreement on approach to engagement
Misalignment with new Resource Management (RM) system implementation (e.g. functions, resourcing)	Medium	High	- Aligned reporting through CE Forum - Identify and manage interdependencies
Process does not meet legislative requirements and is not approved	Medium	High	- Align with legislative requirements - Ensure process is sufficient
Rushed process does not bring community along	High	High	- Early engagement plan - Thorough consultation that meets legislative requirements - Adequate resourcing of comms and engagement
Capacity constraints across councils (including RM Reform and the implementation of LWDW) impact delivery	High	High	- Early decision to set up project run with sufficient external capacity. - CE oversight of work programmes to manage dependencies and risks
Programme delays mean that new governance is not in place ahead of the 2028 elections	High	High	- Resource the project from the start - Immediate request to central government for funding support - Work closely with central government so approval process is resourced and not delayed. - Procure external and professional services as soon as possible. - Regular governance meetings and report backs to councils. - Consider case to advocate for a four-year term.
Procedural / legal challenge risk increased due to pace of work	Medium	High	- Early legal assurance and disciplined records management. - Ensure statutory processes are followed precisely. - Avoid substantive commitments ahead of triggers. - Embed quality assurance at each decision gate.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Option One is recommended as it ensures that the Far North District Council plays an active part in

· shaping the reform discussions

· maintaining regional alignment, and

· ensuring that future decisions affecting the district are informed by robust analysis, governance oversight, and local context, while preserving Council’s authority over all subsequent decisions.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

A placeholder programme cost, and resourcing has been estimated for the remainder of this financial year at a total of $125,000 ($31,250 from each council). For the Far North District Council this contribution is proposed to be funded from unspent professional services budgets in the 2025/26 Financial Year. This will support the setup of the EAG, and initial programme planning and analysis.

A placeholder budget of $1,000,000 has been estimated for 2026/27 Financial Year based on the stages of the project anticipated to fall in that period. It is expected that this will be funded by $250,000 from each council. The Far North District Council will consider this as part of the annual plan process. These are placeholder budgets and should council decide to proceed a more detailed programme budget will be prepared during Stage 3.

Any further programme costs to enable the programme to gain Government decision on the final form of local government arrangements will be subject to LTP decisions. Beyond that, transition and implementation costs depend on the final form of local government arrangements once approved by the Government. The costs (and benefits) of shifting to different forms of local government will be estimated as the options are assessed and the Regional Reorganisation Plan is developed.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Attachment 1 Terms of Reference Local Government Reform Steering Group - A5644625 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 Terms of Reference Local Government Reform External Advisory Group - A5644626 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Staff Assessment: Medium significance. While this decision does not approve any specific reform outcome or structural change, it is strategically significant. It commits FNDC to participation in a staged Local Government Reform programme, establishes governance arrangements, and makes indicative financial provision. Any future decisions with high significance (including structural change, reorganisation proposals, or statutory consultation) will be subject to separate Council decisions and engagement processes.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Legislation Local Government Act 2002 (sections 10, 14, Part 3, sections 76-82) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Relevant future legislation arising from the Government’s Simplifying Local Government Reform programme Council frameworks and policies FNDC Significance and Engagement Policy Long Term Plan 2024–2034 (governance, financial sustainability, and service delivery outcomes) Triennial Agreement between Northland councils Te Kūkupa Committee Terms of Reference (strategic oversight and reform alignment) This decision aligns with Council’s role in providing good‑quality local infrastructure, public services, and democratic decision‑making, and in proactively managing the implications of national reform on local outcomes.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	District‑wide relevance: Yes. Local Government Reform has potential implications for governance arrangements, representation, service delivery, financial sustainability, and regulatory functions across the entire Far North District. At this stage, the decision relates to participation in a regional programme and does not involve decisions that directly affect service levels or local outcomes. Community Board views will be sought at later stages if and when proposals with direct local impacts are developed.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	This decision recognises Māori as tāngata whenua and acknowledges that Local Government Reform may have implications for governance arrangements, representation, and the Crown–local government–iwi relationship. The proposed programme explicitly provides for: · Consideration of iwi and hapū participation as part of later programme stages; · The development of appropriate engagement and advisory arrangements before any reform outcomes are determined; and · Alignment with Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles through informed, staged, and transparent decision‑making No decisions affecting land, water, or specific taonga are made through this report. Any future decisions of that nature will be subject to separate Council consideration and engagement.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	Parties with an interest include: · Residents and ratepayers of the Far North District; · Iwi and hapū across Te Tai Tokerau; · FNDC elected members and staff; · Other Northland councils and regional partners; · Central government agencies. This decision is intentionally limited to programme participation and governance set‑up. Broader stakeholder and community views will be sought in later stages if reform options are developed and before any statutory proposals are advanced.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The decision requires: · Allocation of $31,250 from existing budgets for the remainder of the 2025/26 financial year; and · An indicative provision of $250,000 in the 2026/27 Annual Plan. These provisions enable participation in programme governance and planning only. Further financial commitments will be subject to separate Council decisions, consistent with the staged approach.
Chief Financial Officer review.	This report has been reviewed by the CFO

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 April 2026

6.3 Northland Waters CCO - Foundational Legal Documents

File Number: A5571940

Author: Andy Dowdle, Change Specialist - Organisational Development

Authoriser: Charlie Billington, Group Manager - Corporate Services

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this paper is to support Council consideration of Commitment Point 1 under the Northland Water Done Well programme.

In particular, the paper provides the information required for Council to consider whether to confirm its ongoing commitment to the establishment of a joint, asset‑owning Council‑Controlled Organisation (CCO) for the delivery of drinking water and wastewater services across Northland, and to endorse in principle the core foundation documents required to progress to the next phase of the programme.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Commitment Point 1 is a defined milestone within the Northland Water Done Well programme, which has been structured to progress the establishment of a joint, asset‑owning Council‑Controlled Organisation (CCO) for drinking water and wastewater services through a series of staged decisions.

· The Elected Member Steering Group (EMSG) recommends the establishment of an asset-owning joint CCO to provide drinking water and wastewater services for Northland.

· The current phase has focused on developing the foundation documents required to establish the CCO. These include the Shareholder Agreement and the Constitution, supported by a Transitional Support Agreement. Together, these documents establish the ownership, governance, accountability, and transition framework for the proposed entity.

· The Shareholder Agreement sets out how Whangārei, Kaipara and Far North District Councils will work together as owners of the CCO, including the shareholding structure, ring‑fencing and financial protections, reserved matters requiring shareholder approval, transfer principles, and the mechanisms for collective shareholder engagement, including the Shareholder Representative Group and Statements of Expectations.

· The Constitution sets out how the CCO operates, including the powers and responsibilities of the board, directors’ duties and conduct, decision‑making processes, reporting obligations and amendment provisions. The Shareholder Agreement and Constitution are intended to operate together, with the Shareholder Agreement prevailing in the event of any inconsistency.

· The next step is to issue the drafts of the foundation documents to the three councils for approval in Principle after which the documents will be finalised, reviewed through the EMSG and then issued to councils for adoption (Commitment Point 2).

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Far North District Council:

a. Notes that the Elected Member Steering Group recommends the establishment of an asset owning joint council-controlled organisation (CCO) to provide drinking water and wastewater services for Northland.

b. Confirms its commitment in principle to the formation of an asset-owning joint Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to provide drinking water and wastewater services in Northland.

c. Endorses in principle the Shareholders Agreement between Far North District Council, Whangarei District Council and Kaipara District Council to establish the CCO.

d. Endorses in principle the Constitution of the CCO as the foundation document for the entity.

e. Endorses that the Establishment Advisory Group will become the first Board of the CCO when the company is incorporated.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

In August 2025 each of Far North, Whangarei, and Kaipara District Councils resolved to enter into a Commitment Agreement (see attachment 1) for the councils to work together to establish a multi-council council-controlled organisation (CCO) to deliver water services for drinking water and wastewater across the Northland region and sets out how we will work together. This CCO has a current working name of Northland Water Done Well (NWDW).

As required by the water reform legislation, a joint Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) was prepared collaboratively by the three councils outlining how this CCO would operate. The governance groups in the Commitment Agreement mirror those in the implementation plan of the WSDP with the costs for this phase to be shared equally by the participating councils.

Included in the implementation plan of the WSDP were two points for recommitting to establishment of the CCO with the first due in March 2026.

Please note the second recommitment point in the WSDP was originally planned for 30 June 2026, however the Elected Member Steering Group for NWDW agreed to move this date forward to 30 April 2026 to allow more time for the establishment activities including the recruitment of a Chief Executive for the CCO.

How we got here

In the implementation plan included in the WSDP two phases of activity were described to complete the readiness activities for day 1 of CCO operations. We are currently in Phase 1 with activities focussed on planning and workshopping decisions that that will be included in the foundation documents – the shareholders agreement and constitution to enable the CCO to be incorporated. In parallel the planning for the establishment phase of the CCO once it is incorporated is underway to ensure the CCO is ready for operations to commence on 01 July 2027.

Milestones as set out in the joint Water Service Delivery Plan. (Note the programme has been accelerated to enable Commitment Point 2 to be brought forward to April 2026).

These activities have been achieved by:

1. Elected Member Steering Group made up of the mayor and two councillors from each participating district and an external advisor (David Hawkins). Eight meetings have been held since December considering topics such as:

a. Content for the foundation documents (Shareholders Agreement and Constitution) of the CCO

b. Content for other core documents such as Statement of Expectations, Transfer Agreement

c. Review and Establishment of the Establishment Advisory Group (EAG)/Interim Board members

d. Role and make-up of the Shareholder Representative Group (SRG)

e. Financial discussions associated with water services across the three councils

f. A prioritisation process for scheduling capital investment

g. What the water entity looks like and discussion on work through the establishment phase

h. How to balance funding, resource and facility needs while creating certainty for staff and ensuring BAU activity is maintained

2. NWDW project team

a. A small project team led by the Implementation Programme Director and supported by council staff from all three councils across workstream topics – Finance, Asset Management, Operations, Legal, People, Communications and Technology

b. Manage preparation of the foundation documents

c. Manage communications and engagement during the planning phase

d. Considering what needs to transfer from a council to the CCO and the principles that will drive that for customers, staff, contracts, property, regulatory obligations

e. Preparing information for the EMSG to consider

f. Planning for the establishment phase once foundation documents are agreed and CCO incorporated

g. Establishing a financial modelling tool and secure treasury advice

h. Work with the Project Steering Group and report to the Chief Executive Group

i. Work with and support the EAG

3. Establishment Advisory Group/Interim Board (EAG)

a. Provides advisory and assurance support to the EMSG and Programme Director and provides guidance as an interim board on establishment activities until the CCO is incorporated.

b. Attending EMSG meetings, council briefings and other meetings by request

c. Guide the water entities Chief Executive recruitment process

4. Council workshops and briefings

a. Each council has held workshops and briefing to ensure all elected members are across the material supporting the decision points

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Role of the foundation documents

The Shareholder Agreement and Constitution are the two core “foundation documents” required to establish the CCO under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 (LGWSA).
These documents perform different but complementary roles and together establish the governance, accountability and ownership framework for the CCO.

In broad terms:

· the Shareholder Agreement governs how the councils work together as owners and how shareholder rights are exercised; and

· the Constitution governs how the company itself operates as a legal entity.

The documents are intended to operate together and have been developed in parallel to ensure alignment. To the extent permitted by law, the Constitution provides that the Shareholder Agreement prevails where there is any inconsistency.

Under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 approval of these documents is a necessary step before the programme can move from the current planning phase into establishment and transition.

Simpson Grierson, acting on behalf of all three councils, have drafted the foundation documents.

Shareholder Agreement – purpose, scope and key provisions

The Shareholder Agreement (SHA) records how Whangārei, Kaipara and Far North District Councils will jointly own and oversee the CCO. It establishes the framework within which councils exercise their ownership role while allowing the CCO to operate independently on a day-to-day basis.

The SHA is not an operational document. It does not direct service delivery or operational decisions. Instead, it defines how councils, as shareholders, make decisions on matters that have long term strategic, financial or ownership implications.

Key Terms of the SHA:

Ownership and shareholding structure

The SHA provides for two classes of shares:

1. Class A shares: These shares carry voting rights but no dividend or distribution rights. Each council is issued the same number of Class A shares, ensuring equal voting influence regardless of differences in scale or asset value.

2. Class B shares: These shares carry dividend or distribution rights but no voting rights. They are intended to reflect the net value of assets transferred by each council and are issued as part of the transfer process.

This structure separates governance control from financial contribution. It ensures councils retain equal decision-making influence while recognising differences in the value of assets transferred.

Ring fencing and financial protections

The SHA incorporates ring fencing principles designed to protect each council’s financial position. In practice, this means that revenues, costs, debt and investment remain attributable to each council district and one council’s water services activities do not subsidise another’s.

Ring fencing is a central principle underpinning the ownership and funding model.

Transfer principles

The Shareholder Agreement includes a schedule of Transfer Principles, which sit within the agreement as a framework to guide the preparation of detailed Transfer Agreements between each council and the CCO. The Transfer Principles do not themselves effect any transfer. Instead, they set the agreed boundaries within which transfer arrangements are developed.

The purpose of the Transfer Principles is to ensure that transfer arrangements are approached consistently across all three councils and that key policy settings are agreed once, rather than revisited during negotiation of individual Transfer Agreements.

At a practical level, the Transfer Principles shape the content of the Transfer Agreements, including how the following matters are addressed:

· the transfer of statutory drinking water and wastewater obligations and associated operational responsibilities;

· the identification and transfer of water related assets and associated liabilities;

· the treatment of shared or non-owned assets, including access, lease or licence arrangements;

· the transfer or continuation of contracts, consents and enforcement responsibilities;

· disclosure of known asset condition, risks and liabilities;

· valuation of transferring assets and liabilities; and

· financial settlement through the issue of Class B shares.

The Transfer Principles establish that transfers occur on an “as is, where is” basis, supported by appropriate disclosure of known condition, liabilities and risks, to support continuity of service as responsibility transfers to the CCO.

They also provide that assets must relate primarily to water services, with shared land or infrastructure interests to be managed through leases or access arrangements where full transfer is not appropriate.

The principles confirm that stormwater assets and responsibilities do not transfer to the CCO, although councils may contract with the CCO for certain stormwater related services.

Reserved matters and shareholder approval

The Shareholder Agreement includes a schedule of Reserved Matters, being decisions that cannot be made by the board alone and instead require shareholder approval. These matters are those that have fundamental implications for ownership, financial risk, or the long-term nature of the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO).

Reserved Matters are a primary control point for councils as shareholders. They ensure that decisions which materially affect the purpose, risk profile, financial position or ownership structure of the CCO remain subject to direct shareholder oversight, rather than being delegated to the board.

At a high level, Reserved Matters include decisions relating to:

· changes to the CCO’s purpose or scope of activities;

· significant financial decisions, including changes to ring-fencing, hamonisation, major borrowings or guarantees;

· material asset transactions;

· amendments to the Shareholder Agreement or Constitution;

· the entry of a new shareholder or the exit of an existing shareholder; and

· other decisions with long term implications for ownership, risk or financial exposure.

Within the Reserved Matters framework, the Shareholder Agreement differentiates between matters that require majority shareholder approval and those that require unanimous shareholder approval. Unanimity is used for decisions that go to the core protections agreed by councils and where shared agreement is essential.

The following matters require unanimous shareholder approval:

§ Ring fencing and Harmonisation arrangements: Any decision that would alter the principle that revenues, costs, debt and investment remain attributable to each council district requires unanimous approval.

§ Changes to core governance or ownership settings: Amendments to the Shareholder Agreement or Constitution, changes to the Reserved Matters themselves, or decisions affecting ownership structure require unanimous agreement, reflecting their long-term significance.

§ Entry or exit of shareholders: The admission of a new shareholder or the exit of an existing shareholder requires unanimous approval, given the implications for asset ownership, risk allocation and governance.

Routine operational and management decisions remain delegated to the board.

Shareholder Representative Group (SRG)

The Shareholder Agreement establishes a Shareholder Representative Group (SRG) as the primary mechanism through which the councils collectively exercise their shareholder role and interact with the CCO on an ongoing basis.

The SRG is the primary interface between shareholders and the CCO board. It provides a structured channel for engagement that supports clear accountability and avoids inconsistent or informal direction to the board.

In practice, the SRG is the point at which councils:

· Set the Statement of Expectations for the CCO;

· receive and consider reporting from the board on performance, risks and emerging issues;

· engage with the board on matters of strategic importance within the parameters set by the Shareholder Agreement;

· consider matters delegated to it under the Shareholder Agreement; and

· support consistent communication of shareholder expectations to the CCO.

The SRG does not manage the CCO and does not direct operational decisions. Responsibility for operational management sits with the board and executive leadership.

The SRG does not replace individual councils’ statutory decision-making powers. Matters identified as Reserved Matters requiring shareholder approval continue to be referred to councils for formal consideration and resolution.

Through the SRG, shareholders may engage with the board on strategic direction, alignment with shareholder expectations (including Statements of Expectations), and emerging risks or issues. The board remains accountable for managing the affairs of the CCO within the framework established by the shareholders.

The Terms of Reference for the SRG are set out in a schedule to the Shareholder Agreement. These provide details on membership, scope of authority, meeting processes and reporting arrangements.

Statements of Expectations and accountability

The SHA provides for councils to issue a Statement of Expectations (SoE) to the CCO, setting out shareholder expectations relating to performance, service delivery, financial management and reporting.

This is the central accountability mechanism between the Council’s and the CCO, whereby the shareholders communicate their collective expectations to the CCO board about how the organisation is expected to perform its role.

The SoE does not direct day‑to‑day operations and does not displace the board’s statutory responsibilities. Rather, it sets out high‑level expectations relating to performance, priorities, conduct and accountability, within the governance framework established by the Shareholder Agreement and Constitution. The SOE is a reserved matter and must be agreed unanimously by the SRG.

Scope of shareholder expectations

The SoE can outline the shareholders’ expectations across a number of core areas, including:

o Strategic intent and purpose: Expectations regarding the CCO’s role in delivering safe, reliable and compliant drinking water and wastewater services, consistent with statutory requirements and the purpose set out in the Constitution.

o Financial stewardship and ring‑fencing: Expectations that the CCO operates within the agreed ring‑fencing framework, maintains transparency of financial performance by district, and manages assets, debt and investment in a prudent and sustainable manner.

o Service delivery and customer focus: Expectations relating to continuity of service, customer experience, responsiveness to issues, and effective engagement with communities, recognising that service levels, priorities and charging may differ by district.

o Asset management and investment planning: Expectations regarding the stewardship of public water assets, evidence‑based investment planning, prioritisation of critical infrastructure, and long‑term asset sustainability.

o Regulatory compliance and risk management: Expectations that the CCO meets all regulatory obligations, maintains robust risk management systems, and proactively manages health, safety and environmental risks.

o Workforce capability and organisational culture: Expectations relating to leadership, capability, organisational culture and fair treatment of staff, including during establishment and transition.

o Information, reporting and transparency: Expectations regarding the quality, frequency and timeliness of reporting to shareholders to support effective oversight, including financial, performance and risk reporting.

o Relationship to governance and oversight arrangements: The SoE operates alongside, and is supported by, the broader governance framework. It does not replace or override the Reserved Matters regime, the role of the SRG, or the board’s authority under the Constitution.

Performance against the SoE is expected to be monitored through regular reporting, structured engagement between the board and the SRG, and the annual planning and accountability cycle.

Responsibility for developing and refining the SoE sits with the shareholders, supported through the agreed governance arrangements. The Shareholder Agreement anticipates that the SRG will play a key role in progressing the SoE, with final approval resting with the councils in accordance with shareholder decision‑making processes.

· Constitution – purpose, scope and key provisions

The Constitution is the foundation document for the CCO that sets out how it operates as a company. It sets out the internal rules of the organisation, including how authority is exercised, how decisions are made, and how the board and shareholders interact.

While the Shareholder Agreement focuses on ownership, control and how councils exercise their shareholder rights, the Constitution focuses on how the CCO itself functions on a day-to-day basis within those parameters. It provides the legal framework within which the board is empowered to manage the affairs of the company.

Role of the Constitution within the governance framework

The Constitution performs a different role to the Shareholder Agreement, but the two documents are designed to operate together. The Shareholder Agreement sets the governance and ownership settings from the perspective of the councils as shareholders, while the Constitution gives effect to those settings within the internal governance of the company.

To the extent permitted by law, the Constitution provides that the Shareholder Agreement prevails in the event of any inconsistency. This ensures that agreed shareholder protections and controls are not undermined by the company’s internal rules.

Key matters addressed in the Constitution

The Constitution addresses the core operational and governance settings of the CCO, including:

o Purpose and permitted activities: The Constitution defines the CCO’s purpose and the scope of activities it is authorised to undertake. This provides clarity around the functions of the company and ensures alignment with the water services role approved by shareholders.

o Powers and responsibilities of the board: The Constitution establishes the board’s authority to manage the affairs of the company, subject to the oversight and limitations imposed by shareholder Reserved Matters. This includes responsibility for strategy, operational decision making and compliance with statutory obligations.

o Directors’ duties and conduct: Provisions relating to directors’ statutory duties, conflicts of interest, standards of behaviour, appointment and removal processes, and circumstances in which a director may be disqualified or required to step aside.

o Meetings and decision-making processes: Rules governing board and shareholder meetings, including notice requirements, quorum, voting thresholds and resolution processes. These provisions provide certainty around how decisions are validly made.

o Reporting and information rights: Requirements for financial, performance and other reporting to shareholders, supporting transparency and accountability and complementing the reporting obligations set out in the Shareholder Agreement and Statements of Expectations.

o Amendment of the Constitution: The Constitution sets out how it may be amended and the level of shareholder approval required. Amendments are treated as Reserved Matters under the Shareholder Agreement, ensuring appropriate shareholder oversight of any changes.

Next Steps: Commitment points in the programme

The programme anticipates two key commitment points:

1. First commitment point – establishment readiness. Confirming that core establishment work,

including foundation documents and governance arrangements, are in place.

2. Second commitment point – transition readiness.

Execution of foundation documents to enable incorporation of the Water Entity and move from planning into establishment, including progressing transition and transfer agreements and preparing for operational commencement on 1 July 2027.

Next steps following commitment points

Subject to councils confirming progress at the relevant commitment points, the programme would transition into a detailed transition and implementation phase. This phase would include:

· Incorporation of the company

· Development of transition agreements to manage continuity of service and responsibilities

· Establishment of funding arrangements

· Appointment of the CE

· Preparation of transfer agreements covering assets, liabilities and obligations;

· Organisational readiness activities, including leadership and capability planning; and

· Continued council oversight through the agreed governance framework

OPTIONS

Option1

Endorse the establishment of the CCO and the finalisation of the foundation documents

This option follows previous guidance from Council and gives effect to the stated model of water services delivery outlined in the Water Services Delivery plan – Recommended

Option 2

Decline to endorse the establishment of the CCO and the finalisation of the foundation documents.

Now that the Water Service Delivery Plan has been approved by the Secretary for Local Government (DIA), councils are legally required to give effect to it which includes establishment of a joint CCO to provide drinking water and wastewater services.

If a council:

· Deviates materially from its accepted WSDP

· Fails to maintain financially sustainable water services

· Cannot demonstrate long-term compliance capability

Then under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025, DIA can:

· Require reconsideration of delivery arrangements

· Trigger ministerial attention

· Escalate toward structural change expectations (e.g. CCO formation)

This is reinforced through amendments to the Local Government Act and Commerce Act, linking economic regulation consequences to governance performance. Note that there are no fines or the like for non‑delivery of a plan milestone, the DIA enforcement provisions are more administrative rather than punitive.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Option 1 is recommended as it takes into consideration the endorsement of the Elected Member Steering Group. To take any other pathway than Option 1 would result in council not meeting its commitments outlined in the Water Services Delivery Plan, the likely appointment of a Crown appointed commissioner and an uncertain future for the delivery of water services in the Far North

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The endorsement in principle of the foundational documents and the EAG appointment to the inaugural board of directors does not impact existing operational budgets and no additional budget allocation is being sought by the recommended option.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Attachment A - Northland Waters Constitution (Final Draft) - A5637161 ⇩

2. Attachment B - NWDW - Shareholders Agreement (Final Draft) - A5637157 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low. The development of the WSDP was of high significance as it proposed major changes to how council delivers water services and consultation was conducted, at that time, in line with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.The development of foundational legal documents for the CCO is one of the required activities to give effect to the WSDP.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 Local Government Act 2002 Significance and Engagement Policy 2021
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The formation of a Regional Water Services CCO has district-wide relevance and falls outside Community Board delegations.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	Water is considered taonga (a treasured resource) in te ao Māori. Future management of water services is of high significance to Tangata whenua in Te Tai Tokerau. Engagement during this phase of the programme leverages relationships with Te Kahu o Taonui and regular reporting to Te Kuaka.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	Although the development of foundational legal documents has the potential to have a downstream effect on the delivery of water services (and water services customers). The foundational documents at this stage of the process do not have a material impact on service delivery and will be of little interest to public/water services customers.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The programme remains within approved budget allocations.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has not reviewed this report. The CFO is part of the project team delivering the FNDC Local Water Done Well project and has ongoing visibility of the CCO establishment activities.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 April 2026

6.4 Reserves adjoining Simson Park Domain - Reserves Act Classification

File Number: A5624582

Author: Robin Rawson, Parks & Reserves Planner

Authoriser: Tammy Wooster, Group Manager Planning and Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

This report seeks approval from Council to either; approve classification of Lot 35 DP 51470 and reclassification of Lots 25 and 26 DP 51470 as recreation reserves, or; to approve classification of Lot 35 as a Local Purpose (Carpark) Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. All three reserves adjoin Simson Park Domain.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· In the last quarter of 2025, a two-month public consultation was undertaken on (1) the draft Reserve Management Plan for Simson Park, Moerewa and (2) the classification / reclassification of Council-owned reserves adjoining Simson Park Domain.

· 59 submissions supported the classification of Lot 35 DP 51470 as a recreation reserve and 4 submissions opposed this classification.

· The consultation documentation communicated that if Lot 35 DP 51470 was classified as a recreation reserve that Lots 25 and 26 DP 51470 would be reclassified as recreation reserves, noting that reclassification of Local Purpose reserves does not require public consultation.

· On 12 March 2026, the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board recommended that Council reclassifies Lot 25 and Lot 26 DP 51470 as Recreation Reserves, and that Council classifies Lot 35 DP 51470 as Recreation Reserve.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Far North District Council:

a) Approves the reclassification of Lot 25 and Lot 26 DP 51470 as Recreation Reserves under section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 by delegation of the Minister of Conservation; and

b) Approves the classification of Lot 35 DP 51470 as a Recreation Reserve under Section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 by delegation of the Minister of Conservation.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

All of the land parcels forming Simson Park Domain are classified as Recreation Reserve which is consistent with park use.

Two of the adjoining three parcels fronting Leaity Street were classified by Council in 1985 as Local Purpose (Carpark) Reserves, (Lots 25 & 26 DP 51470). The status of the third land parcel fronting Leaity Street is an unclassified reserve currently held as Local Purpose (Road) under the Reserves Act, (Lot 35 DP 51470), (refer image below). These reserve parcels are Council owned but are not part of Simson Park Domain.

Early consultation on Simson Park Domain's management plan, held in 2024, revealed increased recreational demand and the need for a fourth playing field that was confirmed by a sporting needs assessment commissioned for the Domain. The inclusion of a fourth field in the final reserve management plan would reduce development space for other park uses including possible future redevelopment of Simson Park Hall.

Site Plan of reserves

Council approved the initiation of consultation on both classification and the draft management plan in September 2025, (Resolution 2025/117) and consultation on these matters concluded in December 2025. Lot 35, the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve, cannot be included in the approved reserve management plan unless it has been classified as a reserve. The consultation asked for comment on the option of Lot 35 being classified as recreation reserve and communicated that if this parcel was classified as recreation reserve that Lots 25 and 26 would also be classified as recreation reserves, noting that Council is able to reclassify Local Purpose Reserves without public consultation.

Summary of consultation:

· 59 submissions supported the classification of Lot 35 DP51470 as a recreation reserve

· 4 responses were opposed to the classification of Lot 35 DP51470 as a recreation reserve

· 2 respondents said they were not sure about the proposed reclassification

· A further 5 respondents did not have a view on the proposed classification.

Comments in support of reclassification as recreation reserve were as follows:

Needs to be utilised

One hundred percent agree

Under-utilised and would be great to see this used as an overflow for parking with some proper access point into the field area for pedestrians.

Comments in opposition were as follows:

In 2018 on the day of the Council meeting which was to adopt the 2018 dog management bylaw and policy, council managers submitted a last minute change to ban dogs from being off-leash on any reserve in our district. There was no consultation on this with the community, or iwi. If you reclassify this land as 'reserve', a clear consequence is that dogs must be on leash. You have not mentioned this in the Simson Park consultation documents or as part of this online survey.

Unsure responses were as follows:

I am not 100% sure that I fully understand the implications of this decision

FNDC should focus on its core duties. To fix roads and footpaths and water leaks etc.

Section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977 states that recreation reserves have ‘the purpose of providing areas for the recreation and sporting activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public, and for the protection of the natural environment and beauty of the countryside, with emphasis on the retention of open spaces and on outdoor recreational activities, including recreational tracks in the countryside’.

Section 23 of the Reserves Act 1977 states that local purpose reserves have ‘the purpose of providing and retaining areas for such local purpose or purposes as are specific in any classification of the reserve.

A recreation reserve can provide for carparking associated with recreation activities in the reserve, and car parking is commonly provided in larger sports parks.

Reserves must be appropriately classified before a reserve management plan can be approved, so Lot 35, the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve, that forms the entrance to Simson Park Hall cannot be included in the Simson Park Domain reserve management plan unless it has been classified.

On 12 March 2025, the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board recommended that Lots 25 and 26 DP 51470 were reclassified as Recreation Reserves and that Lot 35 DP 51470 was classified as a Recreation Reserve (resolution number not yet available).

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Option 1: Staff recommendation: Classify Lot 35: Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as a Recreation Reserve, and reclassify Lots 25 and 26 as Recreation Reserves.

This option will give the greatest flexibility for use and will mean the land can be used for carparking associated with Simson Park Domain and Simson Park Hall and can also be used in part for future redevelopment of Simson Park Hall. All land parcels would be included in the reserve management plan when submitted to Council for adoption.

Option 2: Classify Lot 35: Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as a Local Purpose (Carpark) Reserve. The land could continue to be used for carparking. There would be minimal additional room for redevelopment of the Simson Park Hall which abuts the field to the east. All land parcels would be included in the reserve management plan when submitted to Council for adoption.

Option 3: Do not classify Lot 35: Local Purpose (Road) Reserve. Only include Lot 25 and Lot 26 in the reserve management plan as Local Purpose (Carpark) Reserves associated with Simson Park Domain.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Classification of Lot 35 will allow this parcel to be included in the reserve management plan.

Classification of all three parcels (Lots 25, 26 and 35), as Recreation Reserves is consistent with the predominant community view and will allow these parcels to be managed as part of Simson Park Domain. This will provide the greatest flexibility for future management and development of Simson Park Domain and will best meet the aspirations of the community.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Gazetting costs are expected to be less than $300. There are no other financial implications as a result of this report.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The classification of parcels of land adjoining Simson Park Domain has minor significance as the parcels form a small percentage of the park however it would allow more efficient use of this land as part of the park.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The three parcels adjoining Simson Park Domain are all reserves under the Reserves Act 1977. Appropriate classification is a guiding principle in the Reserves Act 1977 and is aligned with the FNDC Parks and Reserves Policy.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	On 12 March 2026, the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board recommended that Council reclassifies Lot 25 and Lot 26 DP 51470 as Recreation Reserves, and that Council classifies Lot 35 DP 51470 as Recreation Reserve
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	A representative from Ngāti Kōpaki and Ngāti Te Ara has been involved throughout the planning process and has supported the community aspirations for this valuable park.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	The Reserves Act provides for formal consultation that is publicly notified, and a two month consultation concluded in December 2025. Issues were raised with representatives from the Sporting Codes and other groups including the Simson Park Hall Committee throughout the development of the plan so that their needs were understood.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications as a result of this report, apart from Gazetting costs, which are expected to be less than $300.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer reviewed this report

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 April 2026

6.5 Development Contributions – Operational Implementation Status Update and Go‑Live Timing

File Number: A5585491

Author: Daniel Schultz, IT Project Manager

Authoriser: Roger Ackers, Head of Strategic Reform Initiatives

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To provide Council with a status update on the operational implementation of the Development Contributions Policy and to seek a decision on the proposed go‑live timing in light of identified operational, financial, and policy risks.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Resolution 2025/136 required the go-live date for the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions 2025 (Policy) to be May 2026, which was to align with the anticipated timing of decisions on the Proposed District Plan.

· The Policy’s operational implementation project is progressing broadly to plan and is currently on track overall, with approximately 45% of delivery completed against a target of 37% at the time of this report.

· Core business processes are largely designed, with Resource Consents and Building Services workflows analysed, redesigned, and documented, and foundational communications and governance arrangements established.

· The project is now entering a critical delivery phase, with system configuration, staff training, and operational readiness activities scheduled over the next 8–10 weeks.

· Material risks have been identified that affect the feasibility of the planned 29 May 2026 go‑live, including Finance year‑end blackout constraints, unresolved ownership for invoicing and accounting processes, system configuration complexity, and staff capacity pressures which collectively limit the organisation’s ability to complete system testing, embed financial controls, and ensure end to end operational readiness prior to the go live date.

· A statutory and operational risk has been identified with the Policy, as the current requirement for reconsiderations to be determined via a public Council meeting. This is not achievable within the policy’s 15‑working‑day timeframe, necessitating a policy amendment.

· In addition, the Proposed District Plan decisions are delayed by several weeks and are more likely to occur mid to late June 2026.

· Two options are presented for Council consideration: proceeding with the 29 May 2026 go‑live date with accelerated mitigations, or delaying policy implementation to 1 July 2026 to reduce financial, operational, and compliance risk.

· The preferred option is to delay the Policy’s go‑live date to 1 July 2026, allowing sufficient time for finance system testing, Policy amendments, staff training, and confirmation of end‑to‑end operational ownership.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council Approve Option B, delaying the Development Contributions go-live date to 1 July 2026.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Council has adopted the Development Contributions Policy (Utu Whakawhanake), which requires the organisation to be operationally ready to calculate, invoice, and administer development contributions in accordance with statutory requirements.

Council has not collected Development Contributions since 2015, with the teams involved in this work disestablished at that time, and systems in place no longer used or updated. IT changes since 2015 also mean Council are using upgraded systems, requiring all new processes and organisational training to occur.

The current implementation programme commenced on 24 November 2025, with an original target go‑live date of 29 May 2026. The project is now transitioning from early‑phase design into system configuration, staff training, and operational readiness. The implementation date in May 2026 was intended to align with the decisions on the Proposed District Plan. However, decisions on the Proposed District Plan are now delayed and is scheduled to occur mid-June 2026.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The implementation programme has delivered substantial early progress, with approximately 90% of core business processes designed and documented, along with governance and communications arrangements established. The focus of delivery now shifts to system configuration, operational training, and end‑to‑end readiness.

As the programme has progressed, several risks have crystallised that materially affect the achievability of the original 29 May 2026 go‑live date. In particular, Finance has identified a year‑end blackout period from May through early July, limiting resource availability for testing. In parallel, operational ownership for invoicing and accounting processes has not yet been fully confirmed, leaving the end‑to‑end charging process incomplete.

In addition, clause 28.3.b of the Policy requires amendment due to it being operationally unworkable within the statutory 15‑working‑day reconsideration timeframe. The amendment is required to mitigate the identified statutory and service delivery risk. Reconsideration of a development contribution charge is a statutory right protected under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). It allows an applicant to request a review a development contribution assessment and provides the three grounds on which a reconsideration application can be considered by the Council. The timing of this is intended to align with and be adopted through the Annual Plan process.

Option A – Proceed with 29 May 2026 Go‑Live (with Accelerated Mitigations)

This option retains the currently planned Policy go‑live date of 29 May 2026 and requires the organisation to complete all remaining operational readiness activities within a compressed timeframe. This includes finalising system configuration and testing, confirming end‑to‑end operational ownership for invoicing and accounting, delivering staff training, and progressing the required Policy amendment relating to reconsiderations.

While early‑phase process design is largely complete, the remaining delivery phase coincides with the Finance year‑end blackout period, which occurs each year, and presents known staff capacity constraints. As a result, this option assumes that critical dependencies can be resolved within limited time and system availability.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages	Disadvantages
Enables Development Contributions charging to commence from 29 May 2026 which aligns with public messaging to date.	Finance year-end blackout materially limits system testing, configuration, and stabilisation prior to go-live.
Maintains the original implementation timeline and avoids a formal deferral.	High residual risk that financial controls and invoicing processes will not be fully embedded at go-live date.
Demonstrates urgency in responding to growth-related funding pressures.	Operational ownership for invoicing and accounting is not yet confirmed, leaving end-to-end processes incomplete.
Builds on momentum from completed process design work.	Pathway system configuration complexity may exceed remaining time available for testing and remediation.
	Required Policy amendment to address reconsideration timeframes is unlikely to be adopted before go-live.
	Increased likelihood of service disruption, rework, and compliance risk immediately following go-live date.

Risk Assessment

Risk	Consequence	Likelihood	Assessment	Response
Invoicing/accounting control risk: Without a confirmed operational owner for invoice creation/processing, the end‑to‑end process is incomplete	+ or - 15% slippage on project timeframes	Rare <10%	Reviewed by Development Contributions Steering Group	Responsibility will be assigned to the most appropriate role, as determined through process analysis.
Statutory/compliance risk (reconsiderations): The current wording of clause 28.3.b is described as unworkable against the policy timeframe, requiring amendment.	An extra ordinary Council meeting will need to be held to comply with Clause 28.3.b	Likely 40%-70%	Reviewed by Development Contributions Steering Group	Accept the risk on the basis that the amendment consultation process is expected to conclude in July or August 2026.
Readiness runway risk (Finance + training): Finance blackout and staff capacity constraints reduce the available window for testing and operational embedding prior to go‑live.	+ or - 15% slippage on project timeframes	Probability 70%-90%	Reviewed by Development Contributions Steering Group	Consider engaging an external resource to backfill existing resource constraints.
Cross‑process coordination risk: Triggers span multiple teams (RC/BC/Service connections) and need consistent, “joined‑up” execution to prevent missed/duplicated charging.	Localised, active resistance to change, needs structured management and management escalation. Moderate (>±5%) variation to schedule, budget scope.	Rare <10%	Reviewed by Development Contributions Steering Group	Well defined process maps supported by structured change management.

Option B – Delay Go‑Live to 1 July 2026 (Recommended Option)

This option delays the Policy go‑live date to 1 July 2026, aligning implementation with the start of the rating/financial year. This means not requiring a go-live date to occur during the finance year-end blackout period, as well as additional time to complete testing.

The additional time allows for Pathway system configuration and testing to be completed in a controlled manner, confirmation of operational ownership for invoicing and accounting, delivery of staff training, and progression of the required Development Contributions Policy amendment.

This option prioritises organisational readiness and statutory compliance over speed of implementation, reducing the likelihood of financial control issues, service disruption, and rework following go‑live date.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages	Disadvantages
Aligns go-live with the with the start of the rating/financial year, enabling full system testing and stabilisation.	Delays commencement of Development Contributions charging by approximately one month.
Provides time to confirm end-to-end operational ownership for invoicing and accounting processes.	Requires updated communications to developers and applicants regarding revised timing.
Allows Pathway configuration, testing, and remediation to be completed with reduced delivery risk.	May be perceived as deferring the financial benefits of Development Contributions.
Enables staff training and operational embedding ahead of go-live.
Reduces statutory and compliance risk by allowing time to progress the required policy amendment.
Significantly lowers the likelihood of service disruption, financial control issues, and post-implementation rework.

Risk Assessment

Risk category	Risk rating	Description
Financial implementation	Low	Finance systems and controls can be fully tested and embedded outside the year‑end blackout period, reducing the risk of control weaknesses or post‑implementation rework.
Operational	Moderate	Additional time is available to resolve operational ownership, cross‑team coordination, and staff training requirements prior to go‑live.
Statutory / Compliance	Low	The required policy amendment and reconsideration operating model can be progressed in parallel with readiness activities, reducing statutory and compliance risk.
Service delivery	Low	Improved system stability and staff preparedness at go‑live reduce the likelihood of service disruption or processing issues for applicants and staff.
Reputational	Low–Medium	Deferring the go‑live date by approximately four weeks is unlikely to create material reputational harm and is more likely to reduce operational risk, provided the change is clearly communicated and well‑justified.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Option B is recommended as it provides the most prudent implementation pathway by materially reducing operational, financial, and statutory risk and ensuring a compliant implementation of Development Contributions. Although this option results in a short deferral of development contributions being charged, this is likely to be a proportionate trade off when weighed against the risks of implementation occurring while necessary testing cannot be properly carried out and a workable reconsideration process. A brief delay is unlikely to result in significant reputational harm and is may be perceived as a responsible decision that prioritises accuracy, compliance, and service reliability, provided the reasons for the delay are clearly communicated.

In addition, the original go live date was influenced by the anticipated sequencing of the Proposed District Plan decision; however, with that decision anticipated to be delayed by a few weeks, this is now more likely to occur in mid to late June. As a result, the practical benefit of a late May 2026 Policy go-live timeframe has diminished.

Proceeding with Option A comes with risks and with key dependencies unresolved.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The Policy’s operational implementation project is being delivered within existing approved budgets, and no additional budget allocation is sought as part of this recommended option.

The primary financial consideration relates to implementation risk rather than cost. Proceeding with a 29 May 2026 go-live date would coincide with the Finance year-end blackout period, limiting the ability to complete system testing, validate financial controls, and embed invoicing and accounting processes. This increases the risk of post-implementation rework, processing inefficiencies, and financial control issues.

Delaying the go-live date to 1 July 2026 mitigates these risks by aligning implementation with Finance system availability, allowing sufficient time for testing, control validation, and confirmation of operational ownership. This approach supports sound financial management and reduces the likelihood of additional indirect costs arising from remedial activity following go-live date.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Level of significance: Low This decision relates to the timing of operational implementation of an already adopted Policy. It does not introduce new policy direction, alter development contributions settings, or commit Council to new expenditure. Accordingly, the decision is assessed as low significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The decision has been assessed against, and is consistent with, the following: • Local Government Act 2002 • Development Contributions Policy (Utu Whakawhanake) • Long Term Plan and Annual Plan objectives relating to growth management, infrastructure funding, and financial sustainability
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	This matter has district-wide relevance, as development contributions apply across the Far North District. Community Board views have not been specifically sought, as the decision concerns internal operational readiness and implementation timing rather than service levels, local assets, or place-based impacts within individual community board areas.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	There are no direct implications for Māori land, water, or taonga arising from this decision. The matter relates to the operational timing of an existing policy rather than changes to policy settings or land use provisions. The Policy has previously been developed with regard to Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles, and this decision does not amend those policy settings or affect Treaty partner rights or interests.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	Persons potentially affected by this decision include: • Developers and applicants for resource and building consents • Council staff responsible for administering development contributions The recommended option seeks to reduce implementation risk, support system stability, and ensure staff readiness, which in turn supports clearer communication, more consistent service delivery, and reduced likelihood of post-implementation issues for affected parties.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The Policy’s operational implementation programme remains within approved budget allocations, and no additional funding is required as a result of this decision. The decision primarily addresses financial risk management, particularly in relation to Finance system availability, year-end processing constraints, and the validation of invoicing and accounting controls. Delaying the go-live date mitigates the risk of inefficiencies, rework, and financial control issues that could arise if implementation proceeded during the Finance blackout period.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 April 2026

6.6 Review of Appointment of Non-Elected Members (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council

File Number: A5651871

Author: Briar Macken, Manager - Strategy & Policy

Authoriser: Tammy Wooster, Group Manager Planning and Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek approval to amend the Appointment of Non-Elected Members (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Under Clause 31, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Council may appoint to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not an elected member if that person has the skills, attributes and knowledge that will assist the work of a committee or subcommittee.

· On 11 Dec 2025 (resolution 2025/142 refers) Council reviewed and amended the Appointment of Non-Elected (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy (Policy).

· Staff have now identified that the Policy does not contain express provisions regarding the appointment of iwi/hapū nominated members to Te Kuaka Committee.

· Staff recommend an amendment is made to the Policy to improve clarity around the process for such appointments.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council adopt the amended Appointment of Non-Elected Members (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy as in Attachment 2

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Clause 31, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that the Council may appoint to a committee or subcommittee, a person who is not an elected member if that person has the skills, attributes and knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or subcommittee.

On 19 May 2022 (resolution 2022/38 refers) Council adopted the Appointment of Non-Elected (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy.

On 11 Dec 2025 (resolution 2025/142 refers) Council reviewed and adopted an amended Appointment of Non-Elected (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy.

The current objectives of Council’s Appointment of Non-Elected (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy are to ensure:

• that the process of appointing non-elected members to council committees is undertaken in an objective and transparent manner, while protecting individual privacy

• that committee appointments are made based on an assessment of skills, knowledge and experience, having regard to the nature of scope of the committee’s objectives and activities

• that consideration is given to the contribution that non-elected members can make to the committee as a whole and to the achievement of the committee’s objectives and activities

• that consideration is given to the context in which council, as a publicly accountable body, operates

• that there is recognition that decision-making is already supported by technical advice through officer reports, advisory groups, working parties, and contractors, as well as input via community advocacy and key relationships with external stakeholders.

It should be noted that current appointments to the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee and, appointments made via Te Koekoeā - Council Controlled (CCO) Committee, already sit outside the Appointment of Non-Elected (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy. This is because appointments made in that context are subject to different processes with the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee having its own Terms of Reference agreed to by all four Northland Councils, and appointments made via Te Koekoeā are informed by the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors for Council Organisations Policy.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships is a committee of Council in which membership consists of both FNDC Councillors, Te Kahu o Taonui Representation and representatives of hapū with who FNDC has MOU arrangements. The purpose of the Committee is to provide strategic leadership and guidance that strengthens Te Ao Māori perspectives within council decision-making, ensuring genuine Te Tiriti-based partnership and leadership between FNDC and Iwi/Hapū.

Te Kahu o Taonui is a collective of Te Tai Tokerau Iwi Chairs. Any iwi member nominated for appointment to a chairperson role must be selected through a robust, transparent and democratic election process, conducted in accordance with the governance procedures of the relevant iwi/hapū. Such a process must be determined by the recognised constituents of the iwi/hapū and require nominees to formally demonstrate their skills, experience, and capability relevant to the duties, accountabilities, and leadership responsibilities of the position. Likewise, similar processes apply for hapū organisations with MOU.

Staff have identified that the Policy requires amendment to clearly recognise the democratic mandate conferred through hapū/iwi election processes. Iwi/hapū representatives, and Chairpersons nominated by their respective iwi/hapū should not be required to participate in, or be assessed through, the FNDC internal suitability or appointment processes for external positions on Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships.

Staff recommend amending the Application of the Policy section as follows (Attachment 1):

This Policy does not apply to appointments to the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee, or to iwi/hapū nominees to Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships, or appointments to Council Controlled Organisations under the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors for Council Organisations Policy.

Given the process already undertaken by iwi/hapū nominees to be selected as a representative for Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships, the recommended amendment maintains the intent of the Policy objectives.

To comply with Clause 31, Schedule 7, of the Local Government Act 2002, Te Kuaka hapū/iwi nominees will still have to go through a formal process of being “appointed” by Council resolution.

OPTIONS

Option One: Adopt the amended Appointment of Non-Elected Members (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council (recommended option)

Adopting the amended Appointment of Non-Elected Members (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy will provide clarity and maintain the intent of Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Provides certainty and clarity

Maintains the intent of Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships

None identified

Option Two: Continue without amendment

The Appointment of Non-Elected Members (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy will remain in place with no changes.

Advantages

Disadvantages

None identified

Existing policy is ambiguous

Iwi/hapū nominees would have to go through a duplicated appointment process (hapū and Council)

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommended option

· maintains the intent of Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships to ensure genuine Te Tiriti-based partnership and leadership between FNDC and Iwi/Hapū

· maintains the intent of the Policy objectives.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications to the decision in this report.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Appointment of Non-Elected Members Policy 2026 tracked changes - A5653431 ⇩

2. Appointment of Non-Elected Members Policy amended 2026 - A5653463 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The Appointment of Non-Elected Members (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy does not have a high level of significance as: a) it does not involve the transfer of ownership or control of a strategic asset or other important asset; and b) it is consistent with current Council plans and policies.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The Policy aligns with the Allowances for Appointed Members Policy and Te Pae O Uta Te Ao Māori Framework. The Policy is in accordance with The Local Government Act 2002 (Schedule 7), which allows for appointments to committees of Council.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The Appointment of Non-Elected Members (Appointed Members) to Committees of Council Policy has district-wide relevance and is not within the delegations of Community Boards to consider.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The decision in this report does not relate to land and/or and body of water. The Policy acknowledges that to inform good decision-making under our statutory requirements and in line with Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, there may be a need to make appointments that provide a knowledge and holistic understanding of Te Ao Māori (Māori World View).
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	The decision in this report recognises that the appointment of iwi/hapū representatives to Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships can enhance the available skills and expertise around the decision-making table. All persons subject to appointment are parties of interest.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications to the decision in this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has not reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 April 2026

6.7 Approval of Tourism Frame For Paihia

File Number: A5631535

Author: Mark Inglis, Facilties Lead - Technical Operations

Authoriser: Ivan Ashby, Manager - Property & Facilities Manager

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek to approve a Tourism Frame fixture on the Paihia waterfront.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· This report considers the implications of approving a “Tourist Photo Frame by Rotary” for the Paihia waterfront, on Stockyard Point, at the south end of Paihia Beach.

· The installation was supported by the Bay of Island-Whangaroa Community Board at its meeting on 12 March 2026, which recommended that Council approve the proposal.

· The report addresses the issues of compliance with Far North District Council policy, affected parties, risks and mitigations, implications for Māori and estimated costs to Council.

· The proposal is consistent with the 2017 Arts and Memorials in Public Places policy.

· The impact on affected parties is likely to be minimal and the impact on parties interested in the application is likely to be positive.

· The proposal has the support of the local Hapū and Focus Paihia.

· Since the purchase and installation of the frame fixture would be borne by the applicant, and ongoing maintenance costs likely to be minimal, the financial implications of this proposal are minor.

· The report recommends approval of the application, subject to the applicant undertaking the installation works to Council’s specification.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Far North District Council, approve the installation of a Tourist Photo Frame at Stockyard Point Scenic Reserve in the position indicated, subject to the applicant undertaking the installation to Council specifications.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Rotary Bay of Islands requests approval to install a life-size Tourist Photo Frame at Stockyard Point Reserve. The idea came from one of the club’s members, as this type of installation is widely seen in many towns across New Zealand and further afield to promote tourism. The club’s application is included in this agenda report as Attachment A.

The frame would be a drawcard for photographs of visitors to Paihia and reminds the viewer of where the photograph was taken - resulting in a great advertising platform for the town.

The tourist frame had previously been installed on the Te Tii foreshore but was removed due to concerns raised about its location.

The club requests that it be located on a large open area in Stockyard Point Reserve, at the south end of Paihia Beach as per the image below. The frame is built and ready to be installed. The precise location will be determined by District Facilities staff in consultation with BOI Rotary to ensure a safe and practical siting which aligns with parks maintenance requirements, as per the red circle in location photograph below.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

In considering this request, the following issues need to be addressed

· Far North District Council Policy – Council has current policy entitled - “Art and Memorials in Public Places 2017”, which is included in this agenda report as Attachment B. The relevant elements of the policy are considered below:

o Contribution to the profile and identity of the town – the proposed frame bears the name of Paihia town and the resulting picturesque visitor photography will help to raise the profile of the town.

o Durable, easy to maintain and of good quality materials – the frame is made of durable steel and treated timber. It will be concreted in place at the appropriate depth to Council specifications. There may be minor costs incurred in graffiti removal. The Team Leader Technical Operations was consulted and has approved ongoing maintenance of the fixture.

o Comply with standards relating to design and colour – the steel and timber design is compatible with the other parks structures nearby at Stockyard Point Reserve and is sympathetic to the natural rock and foreshore elements present near the site.

o Enhance the public space – the additional seat and style of the unit would enhance the park by providing improved public amenity.

o Community involvement – the policy states that there should be community involvement in decision-making about any proposed memorial. Focus Paihia has been consulted on the matter and has given its approval of the proposal. Given that the scale of this proposal is minor, it would be unnecessary to undertake a formal community consultation on the matter. The local Hapū have been consulted and have approved the location. Both communications are attached in “Supporting Documents” - Attachment C.

o Become Council property – the frame would become a Council asset and require minimal maintenance due to the durable nature of the materials used, namely distressed steel and railway sleepers. BOI Rotary will display a small plaque on the frame to acknowledge its gifting of the frame.

· Affected and Interested Parties – the frame will not make any negative impact on users of the park; in fact it will provide additional seating for park users. With the frame building the profile of the town as a visitor hub it will enhance tourism and business in Paihia. Heritage NZ was consulted, who had no issue with the proposal, subject to the use of their Accidental Discovery Protocol, should any archaeological items be discovered during digging.

· Risks and Mitigations – there is a risk of damage to the frame through graffiti or physical force. This would create addition work and cost for the FNDC District Facilities Team. Any damage would be funded through existing operational expenditure for Parks and Reserves. The frame is made from durable materials however and is unlikely to become a drain on council resources.

· Consents – The building consent team has been consulted and building consent is not required. An enquiry regarding requirement for resource consent advised that resource consent is not required.

· Implications for Māori – a representative of Ngāti Kawa, Ngāti Rāhiri and Te Matarahurahu, the local Hapū in the area, has been consulted and supports this new proposed location. The communication is attached in Support Documents, Attachment C.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The Bay of Island-Whangaroa Community Board, at its meeting on 12 March 2026, recommended that Council approve the proposal, as per the following resolution:

Since the proposal for a Tourist Frame is consistent with Council policy and that the associated risks are relatively minor, it is recommended that the proposal be approved by Council. The frame will provide a focal point for visitors, will improve the amenity value of the park and be visually consistent with the other public fixtures in the town.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The cost of the frame, and its installation, will be borne by the applicant, so there is no cost to Council for the asset. Operational expenditure for repairs and maintenance is estimated at no more than $200/annum.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Application for Tourist Photoframe from BOI Rotary - A5593781 ⇩

2. Art-and-Memorials-in-Public-Places-2017. - A5593793 ⇩

3. Attachment C Supporting Documents Tourist Photo Frame - A5631603 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The establishment of a Tourist Photo Frame in Paihia is meaningful for the community, however since its value is modest, and proposed location uncontentious, the relative level of significance is low.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This proposal is consistent with the principles and objectives of the following policy: https://www.fndc.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/18094/Art-and-Memorials-in-Public-Places-2017..pdf
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	Community Boards are delegated to make recommendations to Council on the installation of works of art and memorials within their ward or subdivision.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	hapū of the area. A representative of Ngāti Kawa, Ngāti Rāhiri and Te Matarahurahu has approved the new proposed location.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	The proposal is unlikely to cause concern or create barriers to other affected parties. The chair of Focus Paihia has been consulted, supports the proposal and commented that the proposed location was suitable.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Since the installation of the frame will be borne by the applicant and ongoing maintenance costs are likely to be low, the financial implications of this proposal are minor.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has reviewed this report.