Tauranga City Council will not offer property owners the option to self‑fund asphalt resurfacing on roads scheduled to move to chipseal next season, following a decision by its City Delivery Committee.
At its meeting on April 28, the committee agreed the 2026/27 resurfacing programme would be delivered as a standard service, after a trial showed minimal appetite from residents to cover the extra cost of retaining asphalt.
The decision followed a self‑funding trial during the 2025/26 season, in which only eight of 435 affected property owners indicated they were willing to contribute towards keeping asphalt rather than switching to chipseal.
Deputy Mayor and City Delivery Committee chair Jen Scoular said the issue had generated significant feedback, with councillors and staff meeting residents to understand their concerns.
“But it comes down to cost, and as a council we are looking at value for money, which frankly doesn’t include the use of far more expensive asphalt over chipseal,” Scoular said.
“The option to self‑fund was offered, but very few were willing to pay the extra cost, which in these difficult times is probably not unexpected.”
Of the 35 property owners who responded to the offer, there was insufficient interest on any single street to justify proceeding with asphalt resurfacing instead of chipseal.
The 2026/27 resurfacing programme covers about 23km of road across 195 sites, forming part of council’s routine maintenance work.
Each year, around 3-5% of the roading network is resurfaced to protect it from water damage, reduce potholes and prevent more costly repairs later.
Chipseal will continue to be the most commonly used treatment, with asphalt applied where appropriate.
Council said this approach meets national funding requirements and helps stretch maintenance budgets further, with about 51% of the programme typically co‑funded by NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi.
Council head of transport Mike Seabourne said resurfacing was critical to keeping the city’s roads safe and reliable.
“Resurfacing might not always be flashy, but it’s one of the most important things we do,” Seabourne said.
“Sealing roads at the right time stops water getting in, protects the structure underneath and keeps the network performing well for years to come.”
He acknowledged surfacing decisions could be contentious, particularly in areas where roads move from asphalt to chipseal.
During the 2025/26 season, community interest was strongest in parts of Pāpāmoa.
“We understand people care deeply about their streets. While feedback was strong before and during construction, once the work was finished there were very few ongoing issues. That tells us the network is performing as expected,” Seabourne said.
To reduce confusion, the council said it’s improving how it communicates upcoming works.
A draft of the full 2026/27 programme is already available on the council website, with targeted letters planned closer to construction, followed by a final reminder immediately before work begins.
Any broader discussion about reintroducing property‑owner‑funded asphalt resurfacing will be considered through the 2027–37 Long‑term Plan process, allowing the wider community to have its say.



8 comments
No surprise
Posted on 01-05-2026 08:19 | By Kancho
It was never going to fly. Ratepayers already pay the highest in the country so asking ratepayers to pay for the better seal was fanciful. Council wastes money everywhere with unnecessary and excessive expenditures. So we get inferior roads , noisier , loose chip flying when heat loosens the stones . It's admitted that chip seal is inferior but seems although we pay top dollar we get poorer quality.
Council costs
Posted on 01-05-2026 12:10 | By John wratt
With all the crises, oil, rates, AI threatening future jobs, it is getting past the time for Council to prioritise spending for ‘necessities’ and ‘nice to haves’. Council spends on their own ‘monumental’ building, the over dressed empty museum, never ending road works, dressed up with b. Road cones! All these reek of unnecessary & overmanaged expenditure.
Where are these ‘managers’ ? - To crack the whip and ensure contractors and projects get on with it. We see too many idle ‘spotters’, shovel leaner onners, heavy machinery hanging around with little happening!
Curb the Developers
Posted on 01-05-2026 13:03 | By WestieMum
I'm not a fan of chip seal, but if developers of the subdivisions where made to put in chip seal to begin with, then when maintenance roles around, it's replacing like with like and not setting a precedence with having hot mix.
An alternative exists
Posted on 01-05-2026 15:10 | By phoebe12
There IS an alternative and the council know about it! It's similar looking to asphalt and I believe ABOUT THE SAME COST AS CHIP - but with no loose stones everywhere! I know because we insisted the council (after a very lengthy debate by one of our neighbours) re-seal our street after the terrible job done by Fulton Hogan with chip seal over asphalt just a few years ago.
Roading
Posted on 01-05-2026 18:50 | By Beulah
Well jen scoular if the cou cil is concrete either cost why didn't that apply when the council voted to give themselves a 15% wage increase. In the days of cost of living affecting ratepayers it was a disgraceful decision. Easy to spend other people's money jen !!
Not true
Posted on 01-05-2026 21:46 | By Concerned1
How can TCC end a trial which was never consulted on with the ratepayers and never written down. The ratepayers proposed a small annual levy over 30 years to pay for the difference. This was too difficult for council staff to understand and ignored.
What hasn't been said...
Posted on 02-05-2026 17:48 | By JamesWasHere
As a civil engineer, I'm yet to see the lifespan costs taken into consideration. It seems the focus has been on the up front construction cost and NZTA "chipping" in 50%. Chipseal might last 7-8yrs on average and asphalt 15yrs. Yes asphalt is more expensive off the truck, but it lasts longer.
I can see a few nods to the new council building lease which is approx $6.5m per year. Ratepayer's also fund this, so one can see the hypocrisy and understand the frustration of these resident's experiencing Council's decision to cut ones' nose off to spite ones' face.
Another query... does this set a new precedent i.e. what is to stop developers arguing they can seal new developments with chipseal rather than the required asphalt?
@james
Posted on 03-05-2026 13:25 | By Kancho
Yes asphalt lasts longer and I understand there is a new technology mix of asphalt that is even better. So why is council fobbing ratepayers off with inferior product ? Perhaps it's the not taking care of more important essentials while throwing money at nice to have but silly stuff and of course staffing numbers and all the perks
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.