The council approved $1.49m for the upgrades at a meeting on Wednesday. <\/p>\n
The money was not budgeted for as part of the council\u2019s annual plan.<\/p>\n
Council head of city operations Greg Steele said there was a \u201climited seasonal window\u201d to complete the works to comply with the May 1 deadline.<\/p>\n
The work included leachate and stormwater infrastructure, asbestos sampling and monitoring, project management, and contingency. <\/p>\n
The work was essential to avoid legal penalties, reputational damage, and environmental harm, Steele\u2019s report to the council said.<\/p>\n
Kopurererua Valley is one of Australasia\u2019s largest urban wetlands. Photo \/ Alex Cairns<\/p>\n
If the council did not comply, it could be fined up to $600,000, there could be daily penalties for ongoing breaches and enforcement orders from the Environment Court.<\/p>\n
The Cambridge Rd landfill, which was once Tauranga\u2019s main refuse site, operated from the mid-1960s until 1998, when it closed.<\/p>\n
In 2020, the nearby site at 278 Cambridge Rd was bought by the council because it was identified as an overflow landfill during the 1980s.<\/p>\n
The purchase enabled the council to bring it under its existing discharge consents and prepare the entire site for resource consent renewal.<\/p>\n
The 2024 abatement notice required the council to address the stormwater and leachate discharges.<\/p>\n
Councillor Glen Crowther said the councillors had not seen the abatement notice.<\/p>\n
Tauranga City Councillor Glen Crowther. Photo \/ David Hall<\/p>\n
He asked how serious the issue was, because any leachate going into a stream was not good, and the council needed to stop it happening.<\/p>\n
\u201cWith some abatement notices, there are major environmental repercussions. With others, it is a minor thing. <\/p>\n
\u201cDo we [the council] have some kind of understanding of what the impact of this has been and could be?\u201d<\/p>\n
Steele said staff could come back to the council with details of the environmental seriousness.<\/p>\n
If the council did not proceed, there was the potential for prosecution, reputational damage, and the council needed to manage its closed landfills, he said.<\/p>\n
Councillor Kevin Schuler asked if the site at 278 Cambridge Rd had any infrastructure around it and if the infrastructure for the wider site was working fine.<\/p>\n
Steele confirmed this was correct.<\/p>\n
Mayor Mah\u00e9 Drysdale. Photo \/ David Hall<\/p>\n
Mayor Mah\u00e9 Drysdale asked why the full site investigation planned for this year had not been done earlier because it seemed \u201cvery large\u201d costs could escalate.<\/p>\n
Steele said the investigation related to the future works needed as part of the resource consent renewal process, because the current consent expired in 2030. <\/p>\n
There was a risk of additional costs, but there was a budget to \u201ckeep things under control,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The council wasn\u2019t working in a \u201cgreenfield situation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Councillor Marten Rozeboom said the council \u201cmissed a step\u201d because the notice was issued in 2024, so the funds should have been included in the annual plan budget.<\/p>\n
Chief executive Marty Grenfell said it was originally budgeted for, but during the council\u2019s reset, it was \u201cmistakenly taken out\u201d because there was a \u201cbelief\u201d other funds would be available.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn hindsight, we actually should have kept the money in there and asked for some further money for this specific project through the annual plan process.\u201d<\/p>\n
The council asked staff to find savings from the initial 2025\/26 Annual Plan to reduce rates. <\/p>\n