Future Services Review

Key findings and analysis

Demographics

The survey received 520 responses the largest number of responders.

Responses were stronger from the south of the District, with:

• 40% from Raetihi
• 21% from Ohakune
• 23% from Taumarunui
• The remaining responses from smaller settlements across the District.

This means the response profile does not closely reflect the District's population. Raetihi and Ohakune each account for less than 10% of the District's population, while Taumarunui accounts for around 37% (or up to 47% when surrounding areas such as Manunui are included).

General feedback

Overall, the survey shows that the community is open to finding ways to reduce costs and improve how facilities are delivered, but is less supportive of reducing access to facilities seen as important community assets.

There was consistent support for:

• reviewing facilities that are underused
• matching maintenance levels to actual use
• finding alternative ways to own or manage facilities
• looking for efficiencies before considering closure or withdrawal of services.

There were also some clear differences between communities. Taumarunui respondents were generally more open to reducing or consolidating services, while Raetihi respondents were generally less supportive of changes.

Public Toilets (Q1-Q4)

Respondents were generally more accepting of rationalisation where facilities are underutilised than they were of broad service reductions.

The highest level of support was for closing public toilets that receive very little use, suggesting respondents are comfortable with evidence-based rationalisation where usage does not justify ongoing costs. Support was considerably weaker for seasonal closures and for closing facilities simply to reduce expenditure.

User-pays toilets generated mixed views. Some respondents saw tourism locations as suitable for charging, while others argued public toilets should remain a core public service. Open-ended comments frequently raised concerns around public health, visitor experience, and the risk of transferring costs to private businesses.

Key Insight

The public appears more supportive of removing genuinely low-use facilities than reducing service availability in locations where toilets are considered important for residents, visitors, or tourism.

Berms, Parks, Reserves and Sports Fields (Q5-Q8)

This question block produced some of the clearest support for efficiency measures across the survey.

Respondents generally supported:

• Reduced berm mowing outside high-profile areas.
• Reduced mowing in low-use parks and reserves.
• Maintaining sports fields according to utilisation levels.
• Reviewing underused reserves and sports grounds.

For underutilised reserves and sports fields, respondents showed greater preference for:

• Lower levels of service.
• Repurposing land for alternative community uses.
• Reviewing ongoing need.

There was less support for maintaining all facilities at existing service levels regardless of demand.

Geographic Difference

This was one of the few areas where a clear geographic split emerged.

• Taumarunui respondents showed significantly stronger support for maintenance reductions and usage-based service levels, with around 70% support across berms, parks and sports field questions.
• Raetihi respondents were much less supportive, with responses often evenly split between support and opposition.

Community Halls (Q9-Q12)

The hall questions suggest support for retaining community hall provision, but not necessarily retaining all current facilities.

The strongest themes were:

• Support for investing in at least one fit-for-purpose hall.
• Recognition that affordability is important.
• Support for balancing cost, functionality, and community identity.

A particularly strong finding was support for investigating alternative ownership, management, or operating models to reduce Council costs while maintaining community access. This was consistently supported across the District.

Geographic Difference

A clear result emerged regarding the future of halls in Taumarunui. Responses across the District indicate that there is support to have only one hall in Taumarunui.

Among Taumarunui respondents only:

• A majority indicated that Taumarunui only requires one community hall.
• Respondents were more likely to support investment in the War Memorial Hall than investment across both facilities.

Key Insight

There appears to be a community mandate to investigate alternative delivery models and potentially rationalise hall provision, particularly within Taumarunui.

Swimming Pools and Aquatic Facilities (Q13-Q17)

Swimming pools generated the strongest community response of any issue covered in the survey.

Respondents consistently identified pools as:

• Essential community infrastructure.
• Critical for child water safety.
• Important for recreation and wellbeing.
• Important for youth engagement and social outcomes.

There was broad support for continued investment in aquatic services, although respondents differed on how investment should occur. Preferred options generally included:

• Maintaining existing facilities.
• Upgrading heavily used facilities.
• Alternative ownership models where affordability becomes an issue.

When presented with affordability challenges, respondents overwhelmingly preferred transferring ownership or management to community organisations rather than reducing the number of pools.

Geographic Difference

Broadly, there is support across the District to look at options for rationalising the pools in Taumarunui (26% opposed). The most significant geographic split in the survey related to consolidation of pools in the Ohakune-Raetihi area.

Both:

• Ohakune respondents (65%), and
• Raetihi respondents (65%)

opposed focusing future aquatic investment into a single facility serving both communities.

This opposition was far stronger than elsewhere in the district and was reinforced throughout the written comments. Respondents frequently cited accessibility, transport barriers, water safety, and community identity as reasons for retaining local pool access.

Cycleways (Q18-Q20)

Cycleways were widely viewed as having value beyond recreation.

Respondents frequently linked cycleways to:

• Tourism.
• Economic development.
• Business activity.
• Diversification away from snow-based tourism.

While opinions varied on funding mechanisms, there was broad recognition of the strategic importance of maintaining the network.

Many respondents supported:

• Seeking external funding.
• Exploring user-pays contributions.
• Looking for alternative funding sources before increasing rates.

Question 20 (Should the Council collect rates to finance the future replacement of trails at the end of their lifespan, or depend on obtaining external funding when replacement becomes necessary?) received strongly negative feedback.

This indicates potentially an unwillingness to fund these, but with a high volume of unsure responses and negative feedback in the verbatim comments, potentially highlights a lack of understanding around how these are funded and what might happen if Council did not rate for their renewal.

Geographic Difference

Support for cycleway investment was significantly stronger in the southern communities.

Compared with Taumarunui, respondents from Ohakune and Raetihi were:

• More supportive of increased investment in the cycleway network.
• More supportive of pursuing future cycleway projects.
• More likely to view cycleways as important economic infrastructure.

This aligns closely with comments linking cycleways to visitor growth, local business activity, and long-term economic resilience in the southern part of the district.

Overall Conclusions

Most Supported Cost-Saving Measures

• Reduced mowing in lower-use areas.
• Usage-based maintenance standards.
• Reviewing underutilised facilities.
• Alternative ownership and operating models.

Most Sensitive Issues

• Consolidation of pools serving Ohakune and Raetihi.
• Reductions in access to swimming facilities.
• Broad toilet closures in visitor-serving locations.

Overall, the survey indicates residents are generally willing to support efficiency and optimisation initiatives, provided those changes do not materially reduce access to facilities that contribute strongly to community wellbeing, youth development, public safety, and economic resilience.

Key Findings and Analysis

Demographics

The survey received 385 responses.

• 31% from Taumarunui
• 23% from Raetihi
• 22% from Ohakune
• The remaining responses from smaller settlements and rural communities.

General Feedback

Overall, the survey indicates that respondents believe Council's current communications function is broadly appropriate, but there is room for improvement in how information is shared and how communities are engaged.

Respondents generally felt:

• Current levels of advertising and promotion are about right.
• Publications and consultation materials are broadly appropriate.
• Council keeps the community adequately informed.
• There are reasonable opportunities to participate in decision-making.

Geographic Differences

There were some minor differences between communities, although overall views were broadly consistent across the District. Raetihi respondents were somewhat less positive about Council’s communications, with 44% rating them poorly compared with 32% in Taumarunui and 25% in Ohakune. Similarly, Raetihi respondents were somewhat more likely to feel that additional opportunities to provide input were needed.

Key insights

The broader message remains consistent across the District: residents are generally comfortable with the current level of Council communication but would like information to be clearer, easier to find and supported by a wider range of communication channels.

The main opportunity is therefore to improve the consistency and accessibility of communications across the District, rather than significantly changing the overall approach.

Key Findings and Analysis

Demographics

The survey received 337 responses.

• 31% from Taumarunui
• 25% from Ohakune
• 22% from Raetihi
• The remainder from smaller communities and rural settlements.

General Feedback

Overall, respondents were supportive of Council maintaining a role in community development, community funding support and assisting community groups to access external funding opportunities.

Support was strongest for:

• Helping community groups access funding and advice.
• Funding the Pride of Place Fund.
• Maintaining support for community halls.
• Continuing Council involvement in community and business development.

Support was weaker for:

• Some business development activities.
• The Mayor's Taskforce for Jobs programme.
• Dedicated funding for the Raetihi Information Centre.
• Dedicated funding for Citizens Advice Bureau services delivered from Te Kūiti.

A notable finding was the large proportion of respondents who were uncertain about current community and business development services, suggesting limited awareness of what is currently being delivered and how programmes operate.

Community and Business Development Services (Q1-Q7)

Respondents generally supported Council maintaining a role in community development and support services.

The strongest result in this section was support for Council helping community groups connect with funding and advice, with two-thirds of respondents supporting the activity.

However, respondents were less convinced that Council is currently delivering the right level of service. Only a small proportion believed the current level of service is appropriate, while almost half indicated they were unsure.

Comments frequently referenced:

• The value of supporting volunteers and community groups.
• The need for greater accountability and visibility of outcomes.
• Concerns about administrative costs.
• Limited understanding of what some programmes currently deliver

Geographic Difference

Clear differences emerged between Taumarunui and the southern communities.

• Taumarunui respondents were less supportive of Council having a role in community and business development, with support at 48%, compared with 67% in Ohakune and 74% in Raetihi.
• Taumarunui respondents were also less supportive of Council administering external grant programmes, with responses effectively split between support and opposition. By contrast, support exceeded 56% in both Ohakune and Raetihi.
• Support for helping community groups access funding and advice was high across the District but strongest in Ohakune (71%) and Raetihi (72%).

These results mirror those in other surveys.

Dedicated funding (rather than grants funding) (Q8)

The services the community most supported dedicated funding (rather than relying on grant funding) were:

• Community Halls (65%)
• Christmas Parades (55%)
• Trust Waikato Community Pool (52%)

Support was more divided for:

• Raetihi Information Centre (40% support, 40% opposition)
• Te Kūiti Citizens Advice Bureau services (39% support, 37% opposition)

Notably, only Raetihi supported funding for the Raetihi visitor information centre, while Ohakune and Taumarunui did not.

Key Insight

Respondents clearly favour funding assets and facilities with direct community benefit, particularly community halls and the community pool. Support becomes more location-specific when funding is directed toward facilities or services associated with a particular community.

Most Supported Services

• Helping community groups access funding, advice and support.
• Pride of Place funding.
• Community halls.
• Community and business development activities.
• Administration of external grant programmes.

Least Supported Services

• Dedicated funding for the Raetihi Information Centre (outside Raetihi).
• Te Kūiti Citizens Advice Bureau services.
• The Mayor's Taskforce for Jobs programme.
• Current business development service delivery arrangements.

Overall Conclusion

Overall, the survey indicates strong support for Council's role in strengthening communities, supporting volunteers, administering grants and helping groups secure external funding. Respondents were generally more supportive of community-focused activities than business-focused activities and showed a clear preference for funding services and facilities that provide visible and direct local benefit. Geographic differences were most apparent where funding was linked to facilities serving a specific community.

Key Findings and Analysis

Demographics

The survey received 317 responses.

• 32% from Taumarunui
• 23% from Ohakune
• 22% from Raetihi
• The remaining responses from smaller settlements and rural communities.

General Feedback

Overall, the survey indicates mixed views regarding Council's involvement in economic development activities.

Respondents were generally divided on:

• Whether Council should continue funding economic development through contracted specialist expertise.
• The appropriate level of investment in economic development activities.

Many respondents indicated uncertainty about:

• The cost of current economic development activities.
• The outcomes being achieved.
• The value received from external providers and consultants.

Open-ended comments raised:

• Concerns about the use of external consultants.
• A desire for clearer reporting on outcomes and benefits.
• The importance of supporting local businesses and employment.
• Questions about whether economic development should be a Council responsibility.

Key Insight

The survey reveals a significant divide between Taumarunui and the southern communities regarding economic development activities. While Taumarunui respondents showed strong scepticism toward current delivery arrangements and future investment, respondents in Ohakune and Raetihi were generally more supportive of continued investment in economic development and recognised its role in supporting employment, business activity, and long-term district growth.

Overall, the survey indicates residents recognise the importance of economic development but are divided on how it should be delivered. Many respondents support economic growth initiatives in principle, but there is a strong expectation that investment be clearly linked to measurable local outcomes, employment opportunities, and economic benefits for Ruapehu communities.

Key Findings and Analysis

Demographics

The survey received 351 responses.

• 29% from Taumarunui
• 23% from Ohakune
• 22% from Raetihi
• The remaining responses from smaller settlements and rural communities.

General Feedback

Overall, the survey produced mixed views regarding Council's environmental sustainability activities.

Support was strongest for:

• Establishing a disaster reserve or other mechanisms to spread the costs of emergency events.
• Regional collaboration on climate and resilience issues.
• Continuing to provide environmental advice for Council projects and decision-making.
• Practical planning activities linked to resilience and future risk management.

Support was weaker for:

• Climate change strategy and policy development.
• Measuring and reporting Council greenhouse gas emissions.

Open-ended comments reflected strongly differing opinions on climate change and environmental sustainability. Some respondents viewed this work as essential long-term planning and risk management, while others saw it as a lower priority than core Council services and infrastructure.

There were also some clear differences between communities. Southern respondents were generally more supportive of environmental sustainability activities, while Taumarunui respondents were generally less supportive. This reflects overall trends within the surveys.

Responses suggest residents differentiate between climate-related planning activities and practical resilience measures.

The strongest support across the survey was for investigating a disaster reserve fund to spread recovery costs following natural disasters. This received strong support across almost all communities regardless of respondents' views on climate policy.

Written comments frequently highlighted concerns regarding affordability, duplication with regional or central government functions, and the need to prioritise practical actions over administrative processes. At the same time, many respondents viewed environmental sustainability as important to tourism, community resilience, infrastructure planning, and long-term economic wellbeing.

Geographic Difference

A clear geographic split emerged between Taumarunui and the southern communities across several questions.

• Taumarunui respondents were considerably less supportive of climate change strategy and policy development, with responses almost evenly divided between support (44%) and opposition (47%).
• Ohakune (59%) and Raetihi (63%) respondents were more supportive of continuing climate change and sustainability strategies, with substantially lower opposition levels than Taumarunui.
• The greatest geographic difference emerged around regional climate collaboration. Raetihi respondents showed particularly strong support (74%) for Council continuing to work with other councils on climate planning and initiatives. Support was also high in Ohakune (64%), compared with 45% in Taumarunui.
• Carbon emissions reporting received significantly stronger support in Raetihi (53%) than in Taumarunui (33%) or Ohakune (33%), making this one of the clearest geographic differences in the survey.

Key Insight

Regardless of views on climate policy, there was broad support across the District for practical resilience measures, particularly establishing mechanisms to manage the financial impacts of future natural disasters.

Most Supported Measures

• Investigating a disaster reserve fund.
• Regional collaboration on resilience and planning.
• Environmental advice to support projects and decision-making.

Most Sensitive Issues

• Climate change strategy and policy development.
• Greenhouse gas emissions reporting and monitoring.
• Perceived duplication of work undertaken by regional or central government.

Overall, the survey indicates residents are more supportive of practical environmental resilience initiatives than administrative or reporting activities. Support for climate-related work is strongest in Ohakune and Raetihi, while respondents in Taumarunui are generally more cautious about continued investment in these areas.

Key Findings and Analysis

The survey received 397 responses.

• 29% from Taumarunui
• 24% from Ohakune
• 23% from Raetihi
• The remaining responses from smaller settlements and rural areas.

General Feedback

Overall, the survey shows that the community values library services and generally supports retaining library access across the District.

Respondents were most supportive of:

• Self-service technology to reduce operating costs while maintaining services.
• User-pays options for premium services such as new-release books.
• Exploring operational efficiencies before reducing access.
• Retaining physical library services alongside digital offerings.

Geographic Difference

The most significant geographic difference related to the future of library services in the Ohakune-Raetihi area.

• Taumarunui respondents were significantly more supportive of consolidation, with only 18% supporting separate libraries in both Ohakune and Raetihi, while 67% opposed maintaining two facilities.
• Ohakune respondents were more supportive of retaining local provision, with 55% supporting separate libraries in both communities.
• Raetihi respondents showed the strongest support for retaining separate libraries, with 71% supporting continued provision in both communities.

Key Insight

There appears to be broad support for pursuing efficiencies within library services, provided access is maintained. The District is divided on the need for two libraries in the south.

Respondents from both Raetihi and Ohakune support retaining separate libraries in both townships. Taumarunui does not support two libraries in the south.

Overall Conclusions

Overall, the survey indicates that residents are generally willing to support operational efficiencies and alternative service delivery approaches. There is a clear north-south divide on the need for separate library services in Raetihi and Ohakune, which may prompt further discussion on what level of service is appropriate and how it might be funded.

Most Supported Cost-Saving Measures

• Increased self-service technology.
• User-pays fees for premium services such as new-release books.
• Reduced opening hours.
• Moderate reductions in book purchasing budgets.

Key Findings and Analysis

Demographics

The survey received 278 responses.

• 30% from Taumarunui
• 25% from Raetihi
• 22% from Ohakune
• The remaining responses from smaller settlements and rural communities.

General Feedback

The strongest result in the survey was support for reducing advocacy activity and limiting Council involvement to:

• Statutory requirements.
• Matters with significant impacts on the District.
• Core Council functions.

Geographic Difference

As with other surveys, there was a general theme of Taumarunui, which is the largest and poorest major population centre, favouring options that would reduce Council’s spend.

• Taumarunui respondents were less supportive of maintaining non-statutory policy work, with responses effectively split between support (45%) and opposition (48%).
• Raetihi respondents were more supportive of continuing local policy development, with 58% supporting Council maintaining policies where a community benefit exists and only 28% opposed.
• The strongest geographic difference emerged on Council advocacy activities. Taumarunui respondents showed strong support for reducing advocacy work, with 66% supporting limiting activity to legally required or significant matters.
• Raetihi respondents were notably less supportive of reducing advocacy activity, with support falling to 48% and a significantly larger proportion remaining unsure.

Key Insight

The survey indicates a community preference for a more focused policy and strategy function, particularly around advocacy activities.

Together, Taumarunui, Ohakune and Raetihi accounted for approximately 74% of all location-based responses.

Road Prioritisation and Funding (Q1-Q2)

Respondents generally supported directing investment toward the most important roads in the network.

A majority supported prioritising Class 1 roads over lower-use roads, suggesting an acceptance that scarce funding should be directed where it delivers the greatest benefit.

However, support for giving rural Class 1 roads a greater share of funding than urban Class 1 roads was much more divided. Responses indicate that while residents support prioritisation, they are less convinced that one Class 1 category should clearly take precedence over another.

Open-ended comments often highlighted the importance of balancing:

• Freight and economic value.
• Community access.
• Safety.
• Tourism and visitor routes.

Geographic Difference

No strong statistically meaningful geographic split emerged among the major centres. While smaller rural communities tended to favour greater emphasis on rural roads, the larger communities generally showed mixed views rather than clear divergence.

Key Insight - Prioritisation and Funding

The community broadly accepts the principle of prioritisation, but there is less agreement on exactly which roads should receive preferential funding.

Low-Volume Roads and Paper Roads (Q3-Q5)

Respondents were divided on whether Council should reduce service levels on low-volume roads, with slightly more opposition than support overall. Many comments argued that reducing maintenance ultimately increases long-term costs and risks safety outcomes.

Proposals to stop maintaining roads that serve only one property received stronger support than general service reductions. Support appeared largely driven by perceptions of fairness and efficient use of public funds rather than a desire to reduce the network.

Support increased substantially when respondents were asked about:

• Unoccupied properties.
• Roads with limited public benefit.

This suggests respondents distinguish between essential access infrastructure and roads providing little wider value.

Geographic Difference

Urban respondents generally showed greater support for:

• Reducing service on very low-use roads.
• Converting single-property roads to paper roads.
• Reviewing roads with limited public benefit.

Rural respondents were less supportive on the whole.

Key Insight - Low Volume and Paper Roads

Residents are more willing to support targeted withdrawal of service where public benefit is low than broad reductions to the low-volume road network.

Bridges and Property Access (Q6-Q7)

Bridges generated stronger opposition to service withdrawal than roads.

However, similar to Q5, support increased significantly when respondents were asked about bridges serving:

• Unoccupied properties.
• Areas with limited public benefit.

Many comments suggested shared funding arrangements rather than a complete transfer of responsibility.

Geographic Difference

• Between townships

No clear geographic split was evident among major communities. The strongest variation was between rural and urban respondents generally, rather than between individual townships.

• Urban/Rural

Urban respondents were somewhat more comfortable with transferring responsibility for low-benefit bridges, while rural respondents were more likely to oppose the proposal altogether.

Summary

Bridges generated less support for service withdrawal than roads.

Support increased considerably when bridges served:

• Unoccupied land.
• Very limited public benefit.

Key Insight - Bridges

Residents are more protective of bridge infrastructure than roads, particularly where bridges provide essential rural access. The community appears reluctant to abandon bridge infrastructure altogether, but is open to reviewing assets that provide very limited public value.

Resident-Funded Sealing Projects (Q8)

Respondents provided moderate support for removing lower-priority sealing projects from Council's programme unless residents funded a local contribution.

Geographic Difference

No statistically meaningful split emerged among major communities. Support and opposition were relatively balanced across the district, with Raetihi less sure overall (more unsure responses) and Ohura less supportive overall (more negative responses)

Key Insight - Local Contributions

Residents appear open to greater local contributions, but not to a fully private or user-funded model for road upgrades.

Key Findings and Analysis

Demographics

The survey received 443 responses the second largest number of responses (after Community and Recreational Facilities)

Responses were concentrated in:

• Taumarunui (31%)
• Raetihi (26%)
• Ohakune (22%)
• Remaining responses from smaller communities and rural settlements.

General Feedback

Overall, respondents were supportive of retaining most current rubbish and recycling services and generally opposed reductions in waste and recycling infrastructure.

The strongest support was for:

• Retaining public rubbish and recycling bins.
• Retaining transfer stations.
• Retaining the Raetihi recycling bins.
• Continuing waste minimisation and recycling programmes.

The most divided issue was the kerbside food scraps collection service, where the community was effectively split on whether it should continue.

Written comments frequently referred to:

• Concerns that reducing services would increase illegal dumping and littering.
• Strong support for retaining local recycling facilities.
• Requests for more education around recycling and waste minimisation.
• Calls for wheelie bins rather than pink rubbish bags.
• Requests for soft plastics recycling.

Food Scraps Collection and Alternatives (Q1-Q2)

The food scraps service generated the most divided responses in the survey.

When asked whether Council should stop the kerbside food scraps collection service:

• 45% supported stopping the service.
• 45% opposed stopping the service.
• 10% were unsure.

While the service itself divided opinion, a majority supported Council helping residents adopt alternatives such as home composting and worm farming if the service were discontinued.

• 56% supported Council assisting with alternatives.
• 34% opposed.
• 10% were unsure.

Comments reflected two distinct perspectives:

• Some respondents considered food scraps collection costly and underutilised.
• Others viewed it as an important waste reduction initiative that should be retained or expanded.

Geographic Difference

A noticeable geographic split emerged.

• Taumarunui respondents were more likely to support stopping the food scraps collection service, with 51% supporting removal and 42% opposing it.
• Ohakune respondents were more likely to support retaining the service, with 51% opposing removal and 38% supporting removal.
• Raetihi respondents also leaned toward retaining the service, with more respondents opposing removal (45%) than supporting it (41%).

Waste Minimisation Programmes (Q3)

Respondents were generally opposed to reducing or stopping waste minimisation and recycling programmes.

• 56% opposed reductions.
• 30% supported reductions.
• 14% were unsure.

Comments frequently supported continued education, recycling initiatives and waste diversion programmes, while some respondents questioned programme costs and effectiveness.

Geographic Difference

Support for retaining programmes was relatively consistent across the District.

• Raetihi respondents showed the strongest opposition to reducing programmes, with 59% wanting services retained.
• Taumarunui respondents were more divided, although a majority still opposed reductions.

Key Insight

There is a clear preference for maintaining waste minimisation activities, although respondents expect visible outcomes and ongoing community education to justify continued investment.

Transfer Stations (Q4)

Respondents generally did not believe there are too many small transfer stations.

• 59% opposed reducing transfer stations.
• 26% believed there are too many.
• 15% were unsure.

Comments frequently highlighted:

• Travel distance.
• Fuel costs.
• Rural accessibility.
• Concerns about illegal dumping if facilities are removed.

Geographic Difference

The strongest support for retaining transfer stations came from smaller and rural communities.

• Raetihi respondents strongly opposed reducing transfer stations, with nearly 70% indicating there are not too many.
• Similar views were evident in Owhango, Ohura and Waimarino.

Key Insight

Respondents generally view transfer stations as essential local infrastructure rather than discretionary services, particularly in rural communities where alternatives require significant travel.

Raetihi Recycling Bins (Q5)

Respondents generally opposed removing the Raetihi recycling bins.

• 56% opposed removal.
• 31% supported removal.
• 13% were unsure.

Comments frequently referenced:

• Heavy usage.
• Importance for surrounding rural communities.
• Concerns that removal would increase dumping and reduce recycling activity.

Geographic Difference

This question generated the strongest geographic difference in the survey.

• Raetihi respondents overwhelmingly opposed removal, with 83% wanting the bins retained.
• Taumarunui respondents were split, with slightly more supporting removal than retention.

Key Insight

The Raetihi recycling bins are viewed locally as a highly valued service. While respondents elsewhere were more divided, Raetihi residents expressed a strong preference to retain existing service levels.

Public Rubbish and Recycling Bins (Q6)

Respondents generally opposed reducing the number of public rubbish and recycling bins.

• 55% opposed reductions.
• 36% supported reductions.
• 9% were unsure.

Comments consistently linked public bins with:

• Cleaner public spaces.
• Reduced littering.
• Reduced illegal dumping.
• Better visitor experiences.

Geographic Difference

• Raetihi respondents strongly opposed reducing public bins, with 74% wanting current bin provision retained.
• Ohakune respondents also opposed reductions, with 56% wanting bins retained.
• Taumarunui respondents were more divided, with support for reductions nearly matching opposition.

Key Insight

Respondents generally see public bins as contributing directly to community cleanliness and reducing litter. There is little appetite for significant reductions in current provision levels. [

Overall Conclusion

The survey shows broad community support for maintaining existing rubbish and recycling infrastructure across the District. While respondents were divided on the future of the kerbside food scraps collection service, there was comparatively strong opposition to reducing transfer stations, public bins, recycling facilities and waste minimisation programmes. Concerns about illegal dumping, litter and reduced access to services were recurring themes throughout the feedback, particularly in smaller and rural communities.

Key Findings and Analysis

Demographics

The survey received 345 responses.

• 31% from Taumarunui
• 24% from Ohakune
• 23% from Raetihi
• The remaining responses from smaller settlements and rural communities.

General Feedback

Overall, the survey shows strong support for tourism as an important contributor to the District's economy.

Respondents generally supported:

• Tourism promotion.
• Continuing destination marketing.
• Supporting tourism businesses and visitor experiences.
• Maintaining regional and national tourism partnerships.

However, support was weaker for:

• Visitor service infrastructure where utilisation was perceived to be low.
• Council-funded visitor services that were viewed as benefiting visitors more than residents.
• Continuing some i-SITE-related functions without clearer evidence of value.

Open-ended comments frequently referenced:

• The importance of tourism to local businesses and employment.
• Concerns regarding value for money and accountability.
• The importance of retaining key visitor services in Taumarunui.
• Interest in alternative delivery models and user-pays approaches.

There were also clear differences between communities. Southern respondents were generally more supportive of tourism investment and promotion activities, while Taumarunui respondents were more supportive of retaining visitor services located in Taumarunui.

Tourism and Destination Management (Q1-Q4)

This question block showed strong support for tourism and destination management activities.

Respondents overwhelmingly supported:

• Tourism promotion for the District.
• Supporting local tourism businesses.
• Developing new visitor experiences.
• Destination marketing.
• Regional and national tourism partnerships.

Written comments frequently referenced:

• Tourism as an important economic driver.
• The role of tourism in supporting local businesses.
• The importance of attracting visitors as traditional industries decline.
• The need to ensure tourism investment delivers measurable outcomes.

Geographic Difference

Support for tourism activities was strong across the District, with somewhat higher support in Ohakune and Raetihi. Southern communities were more supportive of Council continuing to support tourism businesses, develop visitor experiences, undertake destination marketing, and have Visit Ruapehu lead regional and national tourism partnerships. Taumarunui respondents were still generally supportive, but at slightly lower levels.

Key Insight

Tourism promotion and destination marketing enjoy strong support across the District, but support is strongest in Ohakune and Raetihi. Southern respondents appear more likely to view tourism investment as important economic infrastructure and are more supportive of ongoing investment in tourism promotion and destination development.

Taumarunui i-SITE and Visitor Services (Q5-Q8)

Responses to visitor service questions were considerably more mixed than responses to tourism promotion activities.

The strongest support was for:

• Retaining bus booking services in Taumarunui.

Support was weaker for:

• Continuing visitor information services in their current form.
• Retaining the mobile i-SITE.
• Public shower facilities in Taumarunui.

Open-ended comments frequently referenced:

• The importance of visitor information services for older residents and visitors.
• The role of the i-SITE in supporting transport services.
• Interest in alternative delivery models, co-location, and user-pays approaches.
• Questions around utilisation and value for money.

Geographic Difference

The strongest geographic difference in the survey related to the future of visitor services in Taumarunui.

• Taumarunui respondents were significantly more supportive of retaining visitor information services, with 55% supporting continued provision and 35% opposed.
• Ohakune respondents were substantially less supportive, with only 19% supporting retention and 52% opposed.
• Taumarunui respondents also showed stronger support for retaining bus booking services, with 71% support compared with 53% in Ohakune.

Written comments suggest Taumarunui respondents often viewed these services as important community infrastructure rather than purely tourism services. Respondents frequently mentioned public transport access, visitor assistance, train and bus bookings, and support for residents without access to online services.

A further difference emerged regarding the mobile i-SITE.

• Taumarunui respondents were the least supportive of retaining the mobile i-SITE, with 47% opposed and only 26% supportive.
• Responses elsewhere in the District were generally mixed, with a high proportion of unsure responses suggesting relatively low awareness of the service.

Most Supported Services

• Tourism promotion.
• Destination marketing.
• Support for tourism businesses and visitor experiences.
• Regional and national tourism partnerships.
• Retention of bus booking services in Taumarunui.

Least Supported Services

• Public shower facilities in Taumarunui.
• Retention of the mobile i-SITE.
• Continued operation of visitor information services in their current form where usage is low.
• Tourism infrastructure and services that are perceived as providing limited benefit to residents or lacking clear evidence of use.

Overall Conclusion

Overall, the survey indicates strong support for tourism as a driver of economic growth, visitor spending, and business activity across the District. Support is strongest in the southern communities, where respondents were consistently more supportive of investment in tourism promotion, destination marketing, and visitor experience development. However, respondents were more cautious about retaining lower-use visitor services and showed a preference for reviewing service delivery models where costs may outweigh demonstrated community or visitor benefits.

Key Findings and Analysis

The survey received 311 responses.

• 30% from Raetihi
• 28% from Taumarunui
• 21% from Ohakune
• The remainder from smaller communities and rural settlements.

General Feedback

Overall, respondents were generally supportive of Council having a role in youth development and providing opportunities for young people to participate in community life and decision-making.

Support was strongest for:

• Council having a role in youth development (62%).
• Providing opportunities for young people to participate in Council decision-making (64%).
• Investing in leadership and skill-building opportunities (60%).
• Supporting youth-led initiatives (63%).

Support for a Youth Council was lower but still received majority support overall, with 52% in favour and 36% opposed.

Written comments revealed a clear divide between respondents who viewed youth development as an investment in the District's future and those who believed youth development should primarily be delivered by families, schools, community organisations or central government agencies.

Summary

The survey produced generally positive results across all youth development questions.

District-wide majorities supported:

• Council having a role in youth development (62%).
• Providing opportunities for young people to participate in Council decision-making (64%).
• Investing in leadership and skill-building opportunities (60%).
• Supporting youth-led initiatives (63%).

Support for a Youth Council was lower but still received majority support overall, with 52% in favour and 36% opposed.

Geographic Difference

The most notable geographic pattern was the stronger support from southern communities, particularly Raetihi. This follows similar trends in other surveys.

Raetihi respondents consistently showed the strongest support for youth development activities, with support levels ranging from 71% to 75% across most questions.

Taumarunui respondents were noticeably less supportive, with support levels generally around 46% to 51% across most questions.