Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 July 2026

5 Ngā Pūrongo / Reports

5.1 Local Government Reform Head Start Proposal – Decision on Preferred Model

File Number: A5860240

Author: Roger Ackers, Head of Strategic Reform Initiatives

Authoriser: Guy Holroyd, Chief Executive Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To provide council with the recommendations from the Local Government Reform Elected Member Steering Group (EMSG) and seek approval on a preferred model for progressing Northland’s Head Start Proposal.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· In June 2026, participating Northland councils directed staff to further investigate potential local government reform models that could form the basis of a Northland Head Start Proposal. Morrison Low Advisory was engaged to undertake an options analysis assessing how the identified models perform against the Government's reform objectives and criteria. Four options were ultimately assessed, comprising the two broad structural approaches originally requested by councils, along with two related sub-options.

· Alongside the options analysis, early community engagement was undertaken across Northland, generating more than 2,300 responses. While the survey results are not statistically representative and do not constitute formal consultation, they provide useful early insights into community views on local government reform and the issues communities consider most important.

· On 3 July 2026 Far North District Council Elected Members workshopped the survey results and Options Analysis. An output from this workshop was a set of conditions that Far North Elected Members identified as to protect in any Outline Proposal submitted to the Head Start Process where the Far North District Council was a co submitter. These conditions can be found in Attachment 3 to this report.

· On 6 July 2026, the EMSG considered both the options analysis and the engagement findings. Following discussion, the EMSG resolved to recommend that the Northland Head Start Proposal be developed based on Option 4 – the Staged Transition Model. While the EMSG supported the staged transition approach, no agreement was reached on the length of the transition period, which would be considered as part of any future proposal development and design process.

· This report provides Council with the options analysis, engagement findings and EMSG recommendation, and seeks a decision on the preferred model to be used as the basis for the continued development of Northland's Head Start Proposal.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a. Note the options analysis for local government reform in Northland, provided by Morrison Low Advisory (Attachment 1)

b. Note the results of the public surveys for local government reform conducted by each of the Northland Councils (Attachment 2)

c. Note the recommendations outlined in this report from the local government reform elected member steering group, following the meeting held 6 July 2026

d. Agree to progress the development of a Head Start proposal for Northland using the staged transition model as outlined in Attachment 1 except that the transition period is to be determined during the detailed design phase of the programme

e. Note that the local government reform elected member steering group will progress the development of a final Headstart Pathway Proposal with staff and make a recommendation back to councils in early August 2026 for submission prior to 9 August 2026.

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

In November 2025, Government indicated their intention to reform and simplify Local Government across New Zealand. A Head Start pathway was announced in May 2026 which provided the opportunity for regions to work together to design proposals for how reorganisation could look in their area.

In Northland, councils had already been working towards a “By Northland, For Northland” approach to reform that aligned well with the Head Start pathway. Whangārei District Council, Far North District Council, Northland Regional Council and Kaipara District Council all agreed to participate in an Elected Member Steering Group who have been meeting to consider the information and provide recommendations back to the participating councils.

In June 2026, all Councils agreed to participate in the Head Start approach and directed staff to further investigate and provide options analysis for two models – 1 Unitary Authority, or 2 Unitary authorities.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Staff engaged Morrison Low Advisory to undertake an options analysis of potential local government reform models that could form the basis of a Head Start proposal for Northland.

Councils initially directed staff to investigate two broad structural approaches: a single Northland-wide unitary authority or a two-unitary authority model. Through the development of the options analysis, two additional sub-options were identified through discussions and consideration of potential governance arrangements that may be relevant in the Northland context. As a result, four options were assessed and are outlined in this report. Detailed analysis of each option is provided in Attachment 1.

Morrison Low Advisory’s role in this report was not to recommend a preferred option, but rather to assess how each model performs against the Government's reform objectives and criteria. While the analysis identifies areas where particular models may perform more strongly or face greater challenges, it does not conclude which option represents the best outcome for Northland. Determining a preferred approach ultimately requires consideration of the region's priorities and the trade-offs councils are willing to make between factors such as efficiency, local representation, regional coordination and governance complexity.

The analysis also notes that a number of important design considerations are relevant across all options, including representation arrangements, service delivery models, funding approaches, transition planning, and engagement with communities and iwi/hapū. These matters are not required to be resolved at this stage and would be considered in more detail as part of any future proposal development process.

Early Engagement and Community Feedback

Early engagement was undertaken across Northland through council-led surveys, with more than 2,300 responses received across the four councils. While the surveys provide useful insights into community views, they were not designed to be statistically representative and varied in methodology, question wording and survey structure between councils. As a result, the findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive. A summary of the regional engagement findings is provided in Attachment 2.

Across Northland, respondents generally showed greater support for some form of two-unitary authority arrangement than for a single Northland-wide unitary authority. While preferences varied between districts, no single two-unitary authority configuration emerged as a clear regional preference.

Across all councils, recurring themes included the importance of maintaining local voice and representation, concerns about whether anticipated efficiencies and cost savings would be realised, and a desire to ensure rates remain affordable. Respondents also emphasised the need to protect services, support rural communities, and carefully manage any transition process.

It is important to note that this engagement occurred at a very early stage of the process. Survey participants were not provided with detailed information on how each governance model might operate in practice, nor were the advantages, disadvantages or implementation implications of each option presented in detail. No formal consultation has occurred at this stage. The survey results therefore reflect initial community views rather than informed preferences based on fully developed proposals.

On 3 July 2026 Far North District Council conducted a workshop with all Elected Members^{^[1]} on;

a. the survey results and

b. the 4 options within the Morrison Low Advisory report

An output of the workshop was a set of conditions to protect in any Outline Proposal that the Far North District Council will participate in. These conditions are as follows (not in any order);

· Local voice and decision-making close to communities

· Strong Community Boards or Local Boards with real powers

· Māori representation, Māori wards, and Tiriti-based relationships

· Rural and small community voice

· Equal access to regional wealth, assets, and investment

· Fair funding, local budgets, and financial accountability

· Service levels, local access, and essential infrastructure

· Rates affordability, value for money, and financial sustainability

· Clear allocation of regional and local functions

The full set of conditions can be found in Attachment 3.

Each attendee at the workshop was then asked by the mayor to rank each of the Options presented in the Morison Low Advisory Report from 1 (best) to 4 (worst). Most favoured Two Unitary Authorities (Option 3) or One Unitary Authority (Option 1) often with caveats regarding local representation and Māori wards, with many attendees identifying a staged transition (Option 4) as their second choice ranking.

The outputs from this workshop were taken by the FNDC EMSG representatives to the 6 July 2026 Elected Member Steering Group Meeting.

Option 1: One Unitary Authority Model

Figure 1: One Unitary Authority Model (please note the number of local bodies is indicative only)

Under this model, a single Northland-wide unitary authority would be established, bringing together all current regional and territorial local government functions into one organisation. Local representation arrangements would be required to ensure communities continue to have input into decision-making. Morrison Low's assessment found this model aligns most strongly with the Government's objectives for simplification, efficiency, service integration and regional coordination.

Key advantages:

· Provides a single point of accountability for governance, planning and service delivery.

· Maximises opportunities to reduce duplication and achieve efficiencies through scale.

· Supports integrated infrastructure planning and investment across Northland.

· Provides the strongest ability to address region-wide strategic issues.

· Aligns most closely with the Government's objective of simplifying local government structures.

Key challenges:

· May be perceived as reducing local influence over decisions.

· Requires strong local representation arrangements to maintain community voice.

· Less flexibility to accommodate differing local priorities and approaches.

· Significant transition and implementation requirements.

The key difference between this model and the other options is that it places the strongest emphasis on regional integration, efficiency and system simplification, while relying on local representation mechanisms to maintain community connection and influence.

Option 2: One Unitary Authority with Community Councils Model

Figure 2: One Unitary Authority with Community Councils Model (please note the number of local bodies is indicative only)

This model would establish a single Northland unitary authority supported by two Community Councils responsible for many local-level functions. It seeks to balance the efficiencies and strategic benefits of a single organisation with greater local involvement in decision-making.

Key advantages:

· Retains a single regional organisation and many of the associated efficiency benefits.

· Provides a stronger local decision-making presence than a traditional single unitary authority.

· Supports regional consistency while allowing some responsiveness to local needs.

· May address concerns regarding local representation and community identity.

Key challenges:

· Creates additional governance complexity through multiple layers of decision-making.

· Accountability may be less clear than under a single governing body.

· Some efficiency benefits may be reduced due to the additional governance layer.

· Requires bespoke legislative arrangements and is not a proven model in New Zealand.

The key difference between this model and the others is that it attempts to achieve both regional integration and local decision-making. While this may improve representation outcomes, it also creates greater complexity and aligns less strongly with the Government's objective of simplifying local government structures.

Option 3: Two Unitary Authorities Model

Figure 3: Two Unitary Authorities Model (Please note the number of local bodies is indicative only)

Under this model, Northland would be divided into two separate unitary authorities, each responsible for both regional and territorial functions within their area. Arrangements would need to be established to coordinate region-wide activities and strategic issues.

Key Advantages:

· Maintains decision-making closer to communities.

· Allows different governance and representation arrangements to reflect local preferences.

· Preserves stronger local identity and local accountability.

· May better address concerns regarding local voice and representation.

Key Challenges:

· Retains more duplication than a single unitary authority model.

· Delivers fewer opportunities for efficiency gains and economies of scale.

· Would require formal coordination arrangements for regional issues.

· Potential for inconsistent approaches to region-wide challenges.

The key difference between this model and the unitary authority options is that it places greater weight on local autonomy and representation. While it performs more strongly against local democracy considerations, it aligns less strongly with the Government's objectives relating to simplification, efficiency and integrated regional decision-making.

Option 4: Staged Transition Model: EMSG recommended

Figure 4: Staged Transition Model (please note the timeframe is indicative only)

The staged transition model would establish two unitary authorities initially, with a future transition to a single Northland-wide unitary authority. This approach is intended to provide a gradual pathway towards a more integrated governance structure, allowing time to resolve implementation challenges and work through areas where regional alignment may not be achievable in the short term.

Key Advantages:

· Allows reform to occur progressively over time.

· Provides an opportunity to test and refine governance arrangements before full integration.

· May reduce some short-term implementation risks.

· Allows communities and organisations more time to adapt to change.

Key Challenges:

· Increases the complexity and duration of the reform process.

· Delays the realisation of long-term efficiency and integration benefits.

· Creates uncertainty regarding future governance arrangements.

· Requires multiple transition phases and associated costs.

The key difference between this model and the others is that it focuses on the pathway to reform rather than a single end-state. The staged approach provides additional time to build alignment on complex issues and refine governance arrangements before progressing to a fully integrated model. While this may make change more manageable, it also creates additional complexity, cost and uncertainty, and delays the realisation of benefits associated with the final governance structure.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The EMSG met on 6 July 2026 to consider the results of the early community engagement and the options analysis undertaken by Morrison Low Advisory. Following discussion of the opportunities, challenges and trade-offs associated with each option, the EMSG resolved to recommend that the Northland Head Start Proposal be developed based on Option 4 – the Staged Transition Model.

In reaching this recommendation, EMSG members acknowledged that the staged approach provides a pathway towards greater regional integration while allowing additional time to work through complex design matters and areas where regional alignment may require further consideration. Members also recognised that a number of important decisions relating to governance, representation, service delivery and implementation would need to be worked through as part of the detailed design phase.

The EMSG did not reach agreement on the length of the transition period. As a result, the recommendation to councils is based on the Staged Transition Model, with the duration and timing of the transition still to be determined in the next phase.

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

WDC, FNDC and NRC have each made provision to support the Local Government Reform programme through initial budget allocations to support programme establishment, governance arrangements, and early-stage analysis, including development of options and supporting evidence.

The overall programme budget is indicative at this stage, with further detailed financial analysis and cost estimates to be developed as the programme progresses. Longer-term costs, including any potential transition and implementation costs, will be dependent on the final form of local government arrangements and will require future council decisions.

KDC has not, at this stage, confirmed a budget allocation for participation in the programme.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Morrison Low Advisory Options Analysis - A5860529 ⇩

2. Simplifying Local Government for Northland – Survey and Community Feedback Report - A5860527 ⇩

3. Conditions for Local Government Reform Briefing Paper - A5864740 ⇩

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	In accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy this matter is assessed as being significant due to its potential long-term impact on Council’s direction and the associated level of public interest. At this stage, councils are being asked to identify a preferred model to form the basis of a Head Start proposal. This does not constitute a decision to proceed with local government reorganisation or implement any specific structural, governance or service delivery changes, which would require further work, community consultation and future decision-making. Accordingly, engagement will be proportionate to this stage of the process and falls within the inform to involve range of the engagement spectrum. As outlined in the Northland Head Start Communications and Engagement and Communication Plan, engagement during this phase will be targeted and focused on informing the development of options. Should a proposal progress beyond this stage, further and more comprehensive engagement and consultation will be undertaken in line with statutory requirements and Council policy.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This report relates to the Local Government Act 2002, including sections 10, 14, 76–82 relating to decision-making and consultation principles, and the Government's Head Start pathway for local government reform. Relevant Council policies include the Far North District Council Significance and Engagement Policy and associated governance and decision-making provisions. The report also supports Council's long-term objectives relating to effective governance, sustainable service delivery, financial prudence, community wellbeing and strong regional partnerships.
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 and regional significance as it concerns potential future local government arrangements across Northland. The decision affects all communities within the Far North District and is therefore not limited to a particular ward, community board area or locality. Community Board views have not been specifically sought at this stage as Council is being asked only to identify a preferred model for further development as part of the Head Start process. Further engagement would occur should a formal proposal be progressed.
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.	As per guidelines all Councils have engaged with the relevant Post Settlement Governance Entities that they have a relationship with. Te Kahu o Taionu has also been contacted and were invited to a hui with the Mayor of Whangarei District Council in his capacity as the chair and spokesperson for the Elected Member Steering Group. The Far North District Council conducted three hui with Hapū representatives in Kaikohe, Waitangi and Kaitaia. These hui were opened up to the public. FNDC received significant feedback in these hui. Local government reform may have implications for Māori representation, participation in local governance, partnership arrangements and the way councils engage with iwi and hapū across Northland. No decisions on governance structures, representation arrangements or service delivery models are being made through this report. The recommendation is limited to identifying a preferred model for further investigation and development. As the programme progresses, engagement with iwi, hapū and Māori organisations will continue to inform the design of any future proposal. The report is consistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by recognising the importance of Māori participation in decision-making and the need for ongoing partnership and engagement throughout any future reform process.
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 with an interest in this matter include residents, ratepayers, businesses, iwi and hapū, community organisations, elected members, council staff, central government and other stakeholders across Northland. Council has considered the results of both Far North District Council surveys, which received 611 and 472 responses respectively, together with the wider Northland engagement programme that received 2,305 responses across the region. While the surveys are not statistically representative and do not constitute formal consultation, they provide a significant evidence base that has been considered alongside the independent options analysis and EMSG recommendations in developing the advice contained in this report.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Financial implications are outlined in Section 3 of this report. WDC, FNDC and NRC have made budget provision to support programme establishment, governance arrangements and early-stage analysis associated with the Local Government Reform programme. Further costs associated with proposal development, transition planning or implementation have not yet been determined and would be subject to future analysis and council decision-making. KDC has not yet confirmed a budget allocation for participation in the programme.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

[1] All Elected Members at FNDC includes the Mayor, Councillors, Community Board Chairs and Community Board Members