I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Monday, 16 December 2013 1:00pm Civic
Building |
Central Facility Partnerships Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
|
|
Deputy Chairperson |
|
|
Members |
Shale Chambers |
|
|
Harry Doig |
|
|
Peter Haynes |
|
|
Chris Makoare |
|
|
John Meeuwsen |
|
|
Desley Simpson, JP |
|
|
Christina Spence |
|
(Quorum 3 members)
|
|
Emma Cordery Local Board Democracy Advisor
16 December 2013
Contact Telephone: (09) 307 5204 Email: emma.cordery @aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Central Facility Partnerships Committee 16 December 2013 |
|
1 Welcome 5
2 Apologies 5
3 Declaration of Interest 5
4 Confirmation of Minutes 5
5 Leave of Absence 5
6 Acknowledgements 5
7 Petitions 5
8 Deputations 5
9 Public Forum 5
10 Extraordinary Business 5
11 Notices of Motion 6
12 Election of Chairperson 7
13 Election of Deputy Chairperson 9
14 Terms of Reference, Guidelines and Meeting Schedule 11
15 Stage One: Central Facility Partnership Expressions of Interest for the 2013/2014 Financial Year 19
16 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
1 Welcome
2 Apologies
Apologies have been received from Harry Doig and John Meeuwsen.
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
There are no outstanding minutes to confirm.
|
5 Leave of Absence
At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
6 Acknowledgements
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
7 Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
8 Deputations
At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.
9 Public Forum
A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
10 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
11 Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Central Facility Partnerships Committee 16 December 2013 |
|
File No.: CP2013/26583
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is for the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to elect a Chairperson.
That the Central Facility Partnerships Committee: a) Elects a Chairperson in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 25 of the Local Government Act 2002 according to sub-clause (a) noting that no member has a casting vote; OR b) Elects a Chairperson in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 25 of the Local Government Act 2002 according to sub-clause (b) noting that no member has a casting vote.
|
Background
2. The process for election of the Chairperson is outlined in the Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 25.
3. The board must first resolve which voting system they will apply.
Subclause 3) system (a):
i) A person is elected if receiving the majority of votes and;
1) if there is no clear winner in round one, a second round is held and the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded; and
2) if there is no clear winner in round two, three etc, the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded each time; and
3) in any round, if 2 or more candidates tie for the lowest number of votes, the person to be excluded from the next round is resolved by lot.
Subclause 3) system (b):
ii) A person is elected if receiving the majority of votes and;
1) There is only one round of voting; and
2) If two of more candidates tie for the most votes, the tie is resolved by lot.
4. There is no casting vote in either system.
Maori Impact Statement
5. This decision, whilst of interest to Maori, is not considered one which impacts directly on Maori.
Legal and Legislative Implications
6. Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Clause 25 outlines the voting system to be used for the election of a chairperson and deputy chairperson.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Emma Cordery - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Judith Webster - Relationship Manager |
Central Facility Partnerships Committee 16 December 2013 |
|
Election of Deputy Chairperson
File No.: CP2013/26602
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is for the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to elect a Deputy Chairperson.
That the Central Facility Partnerships Committee: a) Elects a Deputy Chairperson in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 25 of the Local Government Act 2002 according to sub-clause (a) noting that no member has a casting vote; OR b) Elects a Deputy Chairperson in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 25 of the Local Government Act 2002 according to sub-clause (b) noting that no member has a casting vote.
|
Background
2. The purpose of this report is for the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to elect a Deputy Chairperson. The process for election of the Deputy Chairperson is outlined in the Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 25.
3. The board must first resolve which voting system they will apply.
Subclause 3) system (a):
i) A person is elected if receiving the majority of votes and;
1) if there is no clear winner in round one, a second round is held and the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded; and
2) if there is no clear winner in round two, three etc, the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded each time; and
3) in any round, if 2 or more candidates tie for the lowest number of votes, the person to be excluded from the next round is resolved by lot.
Subclause 3) system (b):
ii) A person is elected if receiving the majority of votes and;
1) There is only one round of voting; and
2) If two of more candidates tie for the most votes, the tie is resolved by lot.
4. There is no casting vote in either system.
Maori Impact Statement
5. This decision, whilst of interest to Maori, is not considered one which impacts directly on Maori.
Legal and Legislative Implications
6. Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Clause 25 outlines the voting system to be used for the election of a chairperson and deputy chairperson.
Implementation Issues
7. There are no implementation issues.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Emma Cordery - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Judith Webster - Relationship Manager |
Central Facility Partnerships Committee 16 December 2013 |
|
Terms of Reference, Guidelines and Meeting Schedule
File No.: CP2013/26584
Purpose
1. This report presents draft Terms of Reference and Guidelines for 2013-2014 for the Committee to adopt. It also proposes having one procedural and no fewer than one funding decision meeting each year.
Executive Summary
4. This report proposes:
§ Adopting the draft terms of reference for the Committee, which sets out the purpose and principles of the committee (attachment A). The draft terms of reference were reported to the member boards in late 2013.
§ The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will meet as required. It is envisaged
there will be one procedural meeting and no fewer than one funding decision meeting
in each financial year.
That the Central Facility Partnerships Committee: a) Adopts the Terms of Reference, which sets out the purpose and principles of the committee. c) Forwards the Terms of Reference to relevant officers and the relevant governing body forum / committee for their information. d) Endorses the Facility Partnerships Guidelines 2013/2014. e) Agrees to meet as required. It is envisaged there will be one procedural meeting and no fewer than one funding decision meeting in each financial year. |
Discussion
Meeting frequency
5. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will meet as required. It is envisaged there will be one procedural meeting and no fewer than one funding decision meeting in each financial year.
Terms of reference
6. Each of the member boards have individually considered a draft terms of reference, which sets out the Committee’s purpose and principles (attachment A). This report recommends that the Committee adopt the draft terms of reference.
7. The recommendations contained in this report fall within the Committee’s delegated authority.
8. Funding decision meetings will be preceded by a workshop a minimum of three weeks in advance of the decision-making meeting. The purpose of the workshops is to discuss and seek additional information on the applications.
Local Board Views
9. All of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee member boards have considered and generally endorsed the draft terms of reference.
Consultation
10. The relevant Local Board Services Relationship Managers consulted the Central Facility Partnerships Committee members during the preparation of this report.
Financial and Resourcing Implications
11. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee requires officer support to achieve its objectives. A relationship manager and democracy advisor will support the meetings and ensure that other Auckland Council officers respond to the committee’s resolutions in a timely and appropriate manner.
No. |
Title |
Page |
Draft Terms of Reference 2013-2014 |
13 |
|
Guidelines 2013-2014 |
15 |
Signatories
Authors |
Emma Cordery - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Judith Webster - Relationship Manager |
Central Facility Partnerships Committee 16 December 2013 |
|
Central Facility Partnerships Committee
Membership
The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has a member from each of the following Local Boards:
· Albert-Eden
· Great Barrier
· Maungakiekie-Tamaki
· Orakei
· Puketapapa
· Waiheke
· Waitemata
Decision Making
The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has the authority to make funding decisions in 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 in relation to the Central Facility Partnership Fund.
Chairperson
The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will appoint and may remove its own chairperson and deputy chairperson.
Meetings
The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will meet as required. It is envisaged there will be two procedural meetings and no fewer than one funding decision meeting in each financial year.
Workshops
Decision meetings will be preceded by a workshop. The purpose of the workshops is to discuss and seek additional information on the applications.
Standing Orders of Local Boards
The Standing Orders of Local Boards as set by the Auckland Transition Agency on 27 October 2010 will apply to this Joint Committee.
Central Facility Partnerships Committee 16 December 2013 |
|
Central Facility Partnership Guidelines
Background
The Facility Partnership fund is a grant scheme available to organisations to assist with facility development projects. Auckland council has inherited several different approaches for managing and providing community facility partnerships from the former Auckland, North Shore, Manukau and Waitakere City councils. A new regional policy is being developed to consolidate these inherited approaches and create a consistent, integrated approach. This policy is not yet completed.
In the absence of an integrated regional policy, and to enable facility partnership funding to be allocated, the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) resolved on 24 May 2012 that an interim approach be implemented for 2012/2013. In February 2013 the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved that the interim community funding arrangements in place be continued for 2013/2014.
Introduction
These guidelines have been developed to assist local boards and /or funding committees in making decisions regarding the allocation of facility partnership funding. The guidelines are based on legacy council policies with some operational improvements.
The guidelines are also intended to provide community groups wishing to apply to the Facility Partnership Fund with an overview of:
· eligibility criteria
· the application process
Fund scope
The purpose of facility partnerships is to support not-for-profit community groups develop community accessible facilities that deliver on council outcomes.
The provision of council funding assists organisations to leverage additional grants from other donors and develop a better facility than may otherwise have been possible.
Where a proposal fits with the council’s identified strategic priorities and other relevant criteria, the council may contribute, by way of a grant, to the capital cost of the project. The level of council assistance is informed significantly by the level of benefit and access the wider public will have to the completed facility.
Facility Partnership projects benefit the council by supporting it to meet strategic outcomes through the provision of quality, publicly accessible facilities without the council having to provide all the funding.
Principles
The Facility Partnerships Fund is underpinned by a number of principles. Projects should demonstrate the following:
· partnership approach
· evidence based demand
· maximum community use of facilities
· increase participation
· easy accessibility by the wider community
· partner organisations have the capability to deliver the project and community outcomes
· project viability (funding plan, feasibility, business plan)
· multiuse projects
· improved levels of service
· facility sustainability.
Eligibility criteria
To be eligible for facility partnership funding, projects must:
· be applied for by legal entities that have not-for-profit status (e.g. be registered as an incorporated society or charitable trust), or are a school or educational institution
· be for a facility development
· be in the Central area or if in a neighbouring area be of proven regional significance with high use by Central area residents
· be a partnership project with multiple funders, including self-funding from the applicant
· have a total project value of over $50,000 (GST exclusive)
· align with and have support from regional/national bodies (as applicable/where relevant) and
· the project could also be a feasibility study for a facility.
Not eligible
· proposals from individuals, commercial and/or profit orientated organisations
· projects that are primarily health, education, welfare facilities or places of worship
· retrospective applications/projects that have already started
· debt funding
· on-going operational cost
· maintenance/asset renewal
· design, architectural or technical reports as part of a feasibility study.
Prioritisation
In addition to alignment with the Principles the following criteria should be used to prioritise projects:
· the extent to which the proposal will increase community participation
· the degree to which the proposal caters for council’s priority targeted communities and activities
· whether existing facilities meet local and regional needs whether the proposed facility will meet proven local and regional and needs
· potential partners and their involvement in the project
· allocation of the potential partners own resources, including a financial contribution and the level of access the partner has to other sources of funding/resources
· the financial sustainability of the new facility to ensure that the ongoing operational costs of the facility can be met without council assistance
· who is likely to benefit from the facility
· the status of any resource and/or building consent applications already lodged
· a track record that shows an ability to undertake and complete the proposal and operate the facility as put forward
· capacity building of the community (grows skills within the community)
· the amount of community support for, and involvement in, the project
· acceptable community access to the facility
· positive spin-offs for the community, with minimal negative effects
· potential for funding from other providers
· the overall cost of the project is credible and funding is achievable
· the proposed start and finish dates for the project and whether they span more than one financial year
· how advanced the project planning is
· how advanced the funding plans are
· whether the proposal covers prospects and timing for funding from other agencies
· the appropriateness of the scale of the proposed project including the amount of funding sought from council
· the willingness of the potential partner to develop and engage in a shared vision for the facility.
Parameters and minimum requirements for facility partnerships
· Successful applicants will be required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and/or Facility Partnership Agreement.
· The Memorandum of Understanding and/or Facility Partnership Agreement will clearly state the intentions of each party, shared objectives and the outcomes each party wishes to achieve.
· Council’s contribution to the facility is to be acknowledged on publicity material and signs commensurate with the level of council’s funding.
· The facility must be promoted for community use.
· Affordable hire charges should be comparable to, and sometimes approved by council.
· Regular reports are to be provided to council on community use, hire fees, promotions, income and expenditure of the facility.
· If requested, council access to the facility for customer surveys or community research is to be provided.
· If requested, the facility is to be made available as a welfare centre in the event of an emergency.
· Evidence must be provided of an agreed minimum level of funding raised by the organisation.
· The funding mix will be discussed and agreed by both parties. Council needs to know as soon as possible if there are any proposed changes to this mix.
· The start and finish dates of the project need to be within the timeframes agreed to at the time of executing the Memorandum of Understanding and/or Facility Partnership Agreement.
· If funds are not uplifted by the agreed dates, approved funding may lapse at council’s discretion.
· Appropriate business processes for tendering and all aspects of work associated with developing the facility are to be used.
· That “NZS 3910:2003 Conditions of Contract for Building and Civil Engineering Construction”, or a variation thereof, will be the basis of any construction contract, given the conditions of contract contained therein are well known and widely accepted by contractors as industry standard
· Facilities are to be insured to full replacement value.
· Council will monitor the terms of the agreement in line with good management practices.
· Council will have input into the sale/lease of the facility’s naming rights.
· Council will recover some of its financial contribution if the use of the facility changes significantly within the terms of agreement or agreed timeframe.
· Council takes no liability for ongoing operational or maintenance funding, nor responsibility for long-term asset replacement. It may, at its discretion, agree to contribute to operational funding based on a maximum level of council assistance. The future operational model will be agreed prior to construction commencing.
· No council funding will be released until all funding is in place for the project to be completed.
· Payment will be in instalments based on work completed.
In addition, the term of community access will be commensurate with the grant approved as per the table below:
grants for $25,000 - $100,000 |
· The partners will negotiate and agree to a minimum level of community access of at least 5 years |
grants for $100,001 - $250,000 |
· The partners will negotiate and agree to a minimum level of community access of at least 10 years |
grants for $250,001 - $750,000 |
· The partners will negotiate and agree to a minimum level of community access of at least 15 year |
grants for $750,001+ |
· The partners will negotiate and agree to a minimum level of community access of at least 20 years |
Process
There will be one funding round per financial year consisting of a two stage approach.
Stage 1 Expressions of Interest
· groups submit a high-level proposal (expression of interest)
· proposals are screened to ensure they meet the guidelines, align with the council’s strategic needs and that they will benefit the community
· proposals are summarised and presented in a workshop and to the Central Facility Partnership Committee
· some proposals will be declined at this point, while others will progress to stage 2
· officers will work with groups identified by the Committee to develop a full proposal
· no funding decisions are required at this stage
· unsuccessful proposals can be re-submitted for consideration in subsequent years.
Stage 2 Further assessment and funding decisions
· council officers will work with the successful organisations to gather further information in respect of the proposal
· selected proposals are assessed against criteria
· full proposals are discussed in a workshop and formally considered by the Committee who will make a funding decision
If a proposal is unlikely to be progressed through the Facility Partnership Fund, a clear signal should be provided to the project proponents including whether a project may be of interest to council in subsequent years. This allows those projects to be progressed independent of council and/or revised where possible and re-presented at a later stage.
Central Facility Partnerships Committee 16 December 2013 |
|
Stage One: Central Facility Partnership Expressions of Interest for the 2013/2014 Financial Year
File No.: CP2013/26580
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the Expressions of Interest (EOIs) received for stage one of the 2013/2014 Central Facility Partnership scheme, and recommendations on which projects should progress to stage two.
Executive Summary
2. The Facility Partnership fund is available to organisations for facility development projects that assist the council in meeting its identified strategic community outcomes. At its May 2013 meeting, the Central Facility Partnership Committee resolved to adopt a two-stage process for 2013/2014 funding round.
3. Stage one requires groups to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI). This report presents a summary of the 23 EOIs received, provides officer recommendations and seeks Committee feedback on which proposals to progress to stage two.
4. This report also provides an update on the previous projects funded and/or completed under the Facility Partnerships scheme.
That the Central Facility Partnerships Committee: a) Approves the following Facility Partnership projects be progressed to stage two:
b) That the following organisations be thanked for submitting a Facility Partnership EOI but notified that they will not be progressed to stage two in the 2013/2014 round:
c) declines the Ellerslie Sports Club Incorporated 2012/13 Facility Partnership application and that the Club is encouraged to reapply once local board funding has been secured for the public amenities on the lower half of the building. d) approves a Facility Partnership grant of up to $300,000 from the 2012/2013 Facility Partnership budget for Te Papa Onehunga Rugby Football and Sports Club Incorporated for the redevelopment of its clubrooms subject to entering into a Facility Partnership Agreement.
|
Discussion
5. The Facility Partnership fund is available to organisations to assist with facility development projects. Provision of council funding assists organisations to leverage additional grants from other donors and develop a better facility than may otherwise have been possible.
6. Where a proposal fits with the council’s identified strategic priorities and other relevant criteria, the council may contribute, by way of a grant, to the capital cost of the project. The level of council assistance is informed significantly by the level of benefit and access the wider public will have to the completed facility.
7. Facility Partnership projects benefit the council by supporting it to meet strategic outcomes through the provision of quality, publicly accessible facilities without the council having to provide all the funding.
8. At their May 2013 meeting, the Central Facility Partnership Committee resolved to adopt a two-stage process for 2013/2014 funding round. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of EOIs received during the 2013/2014 funding round and, where appropriate, provide officer recommendations on progressing to Stage two.
9. The two stage approach enables council to consider each proposal against a set of criteria and identify which projects to progress further before committing funding. The council will pursue partnerships where a strategic need has been identified and the partnership approach is considered the best course of action. A two staged process will greatly improve the quality of applications enabling more effective and efficient allocation of funding.
10. Stage one requires groups to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI). This report presents a summary of the 23 EOIs received, provides officer recommendations and seeks Committee feedback on which proposals to progress to stage two.
Table 1: Summary of EOIs received
Organisation |
Project description |
Indicative project budget * |
Indicative requested from Council * |
Aotea Boardriders Club |
To build small multiuse clubrooms for Aotea Boardriders |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
Aotea FM |
To purchase and fitout a prefabricated building to use as clubrooms, office, storage and a training area.
|
$45,500 |
$45,500 |
Auckland Dragon Boating Association |
To purchase eight new IDBF certified dragon boats, part of the core equipment to facilitate dragon boating in Auckland.
|
$90,755 |
$90,755 |
Auckland Grammar School |
To develop an artificial turf that will provide year-round use for community and school rugby and soccer and other sports support.
|
$1,600,000 |
$600,000 |
Auckland Rowing Association Incorporated |
To develop a new regional high performance water sports facility on the Tamaki River, at Waiouru Rd in Highbrook.
|
$115,000 for stage 1 |
$1,510,000 |
Auckland University Cricket Club |
To recarpet the cricket wicket on Colin Maiden Park.
|
$208,500 |
$208,500 |
Auckland University Rugby Football Club |
To repair and provide maintenance to the internal and external areas of the clubhouse.
|
$336,100 |
$336,100 |
Eastern Sports Club |
To install a lift in the clubrooms providing access between ground and first floor lounge.
|
$71,943 |
$35,152 |
Eastern Suburbs Gymnastics Club |
To expand and improve current facilities in order to meet high demands of public.
|
$2,500,000 |
$1,300,000 |
Elevate Christian Disability Trust |
To landscape Elevate centre so accessibility is improved for people with disabilities. Adding a pergola, water feature, sensory garden, fencing, paths, meditation area, veggie garden, seating and plants.
|
$99,406 |
$61,406 |
Ellerslie Eagles |
$30,000 towards a feasibility study to determine the scope of works for a club development for the Ellerslie Eagles and further $9,900 towards a geotech, engineering, electrical and plumbing assessments |
Unclear for these components
|
$39,900 |
Ellerslie Play Centre |
To remove asbestos, repair foundation, stormwater drainage, building cladding, joinery, bathroom, flooring, and deck. To improve exterior painting, admin space, accessibility, floor coverings, wall coverings, deck, and sandpit surround.
|
$160,307 |
$52,768 |
Great Barrier Island Community Heritage and Arts Village Trust |
To renovate and refurbish the historic homestead in order to house heritage collection and place on public display.
|
$78,752 |
$78,752 |
Great Barrier Island Sports and Social |
To refurbish the three buildings on property, upgrading to improve usability. |
$92,000 |
$92,000 |
Maungawhau (St Barnards) Scouts |
To renovate and upgrade the Mt Eden (St Barnabas) scout hall |
$195,000 |
$95,000 |
Mt Albert Baptist Church |
To redevelop current site by adding additional buildings and renovating existing facilities, providing a range of multipurpose community spaces including large atrium, public lounge/café, kitchen, and bathroom facilities
|
$2,250,000 |
$200,000 |
Mt Eden Tennis Club Incorporated |
To replace the leaking roof, add insulation in clubhouse, replace the kitchen, bathrooms, and function room.
|
$63,000 |
$58,000 |
Ponsonby District Rugby Football Club Incorporated |
To replace the current sawdust ground surface with an artificial turf including additional paving and parking.
|
$200,000 |
$180,000 |
St Heliers Bay Pony Club |
To move the club to a new location (not determined as of yet) as current land has transferred ownership.
|
Not specified/unknown |
Not specified/unknown |
The Auckland Performing Arts Centre of Western Springs (TAPAC) |
To install a disability access ramp at the entrance, an accessible and safe theatre seating block, and a mezzanine level storage space with equipment hoist.
|
$277,223 |
Not specified |
Three Kings Football Club |
To build a new clubhouse for Three Kings United Football Club at Keith Hay Park in accordance with the concept plan.
|
$3,017,500 |
$1,500,000 |
Waiheke Island Rudolf Steiner Education Trust |
To establish a family support centre with activities and resources for parents, caregivers, and children which, will provide classes and seminars by partnering with other community groups.
|
$209,000 |
$188,500 |
YMCA of Auckland Inc orporated |
To replace key structural features and upgrade facilities including disability access at fitness centre.
|
$850,000 |
$400,000 |
* organisations are asked for estimates as part of the EOI application. These figures are not necessarily based on quotes and are subject to change in stage two.
11. The principles of the scheme is to form a partnership where there is a common goal and vision, a strategic and community need has been identified and where there is a focus on increasing a range of facilities or opportunities for the community in arts, community development or sport. Historically the scheme has supported four-six key strategic projects per funding round rather than spread funding across a number of smaller refurbishment projects.
12. A facility partnership project should go beyond maintenance, or providing improved comfort or the beautification of existing facilities. A facility partnership project should provide increased opportunities for the community to engage in activities and be supported by strategic thinking and multiple partners. The provision of a facility partnership grant should contribute to the fundamental outcomes of the organisation.
13. If a proposal is unlikely to be progressed through the Facility Partnership scheme, a clear signal should be provided to the organisation including whether a project may be of interest to council in subsequent years. If a project does not meet the Policy minimum requirements such as, a request for maintenance funding, asset replacement, does not have evidence of a minimum level of funding raised by the organisation and/or does not increase participation through the capital development project then organisations should be informed. This allows those projects to be progressed independent of council and/or revised where possible and re-presented at a later stage.
14. Stage two applications will be by invitation only from those who submitted an EOI. Officers will assist organisations who were identified during stage one to prepare a full application for stage two. Stage two applications will be reported to a workshop in March 2014, and a subsequent Committee meeting will make funding decisions. The total funding pool available for the Central Facility Partnership 2013/2014 round is $1,500,000.
15. When considering whether to progress a project to the next stage the Committee should consider its alignment with the principles outlined in the Facility Partnership Guidelines:
· partnership approach
· evidence based demand
· maximum community use of facilities
· increase participation
· alignment with/linkage to Auckland Plan and relevant local board plans
· easy accessibility by the wider community
· partner organisations have the capability to deliver the project and community outcomes
· project viability (funding plan, feasibility, business plan)
· multiuse projects
· improved levels of service (ie quality of experience
· facility sustainability
16. Below is a summary of EOIs and officers recommendations:
Aotea Boardriders Club
17. The Aotea Boardriders Club is a small (approximately 80 members), long established surf Club based on private land on Great Barrier Island. The Club currently operates out of an old stationary bus. The Club hosts a number of competitions and events for local surfers encouraging locals to participate in national surfing circuits.
18. A clubroom would provide a home for long boarders as well as a place within the community for other organisations to use. A single focal point would allow for groups to work together and foster greater relationships. The Club has identified a number of other organisations such as Sea Education Aotea who provide safety awareness programmes and Aotea Family Support Group who may also use the facility.
19. The Club has estimated the cost of the project to be $50,000 and is seeking the full amount from council. However, the Club is proposing to utilise 200 hours of voluntary effort towards the project. The guidelines refer to the ability of a project to seek funding from other providers and evidence of an agreed minimum level of funding raised by the organisation as criteria to prioritise proposals and minimum requirements. Seeking full funding from the council is not a partnership project.
20. While the scale of the project is relatively small, it is recognised that the needs of the Island are different from those of the central isthmus. Many of the gaming charitable trusts do not fund projects on Great Barrier Island reducing the number of funding agencies they can apply to. Also due to the size of the Great Barrier Island, there are less community facilities however, it is acknowledged that a number of facilities are multiuse.
21. Officers recommend that if this project is supported to progress to stage two that the Club is required to contribute financially to the project and to seek some of the costs from other funders, as council does not fully fund projects. For stage two officers would also require firm quotes and plans for the development. At this stage it is difficult to ascertain if $50,000 for the project is a realistic budget.
22. Officers recommend progressing to stage 2.
Aotea FM
23. Aotea FM is a community broadcast radio based on Great Barrier Island. The station is run primarily by local volunteers and provides an avenue to inform and entertain the community. The Trust is applying for funding to purchase and fitout a prefabricated building to locate next to their existing broadcast studio. The building would be used for training, teaching and as an office space. Currently other organisations do not use the existing facility due to a lack of space however the Trust intends to partner with other groups (none were named specifically in the application).
24. The provision of a new facility is likely to improve the comfort of current volunteers but is unlikely to result in increasing the fundamental outcome of Aotea FM providing more airtime to the community.
25. The project is estimated to cost $45,500 and Aotea FM is seeking the full costs from council. The project value is below the minimum criteria and as Aotea FM is seeking full funding from council, this is not deemed a partnership project in accordance with the guidelines.
26. Officers recommended that this project not be progressed to stage two.
Auckland Dragon Boating Association
27. The Auckland Dragon Boating Association is seeking $90,755 to purchase eight new boats. Officers acknowledge the purchase of dragon boats would increase participation but they are considered equipment rather than a community assets/facility and are therefore not eligible under the fund.
28. It is therefore recommended that this application not be progressed to stage two.
Auckland Grammar School
29. Auckland Grammar School is an all boys school located in Epsom. The school is seeking to develop an artificial turf with lights to release pressure on the existing grass fields.
30. Council’s sports field demand model calculates and matches field demand with field capacity. The model indicates a significant shortfall in the central area for playing field time even taking into account council’s proposed significant investment into artificial turf. The Auckland Regional Football Facility Plan 2011 – 2021 identifies maximising the use of existing field resources as a priority and a need for an additional 19 artificial turfs (or equivalent capacity hours) to meet demand by 2021.
31. St Peters College (located a few hundred metres down the road) has recently developed an artificial turf which is available to the public however council has no formal community access arrangements with the College and there is still a need for additional provision in the area.
32. The approximate cost of the project is $1.6 million of which the school is looking to take out a loan for $600,000. The terms of the loan would need to be acceptable to the Council. The School has indicated that they would want exclusive use of the turf from 7am-8:30am and 3pm-4:30pm Monday to Friday; outside of these times, the community could use the turf. The exact times would need to form part of any funding agreement and reflect council’s investment.
33. Officers recommend this project be progressed to stage two subject to further discussions and clarity around proposed pricing structures, the funding mechanisms and school/community use with the School Board of Trustees.
Auckland Rowing Association Incorporated
34. The Auckland Rowing Association Incorporated (with endorsement by Rowing NZ) has been in discussions with various Council departments and elected members over the development of a new water sports facility (accommodating rowing, waka ama, canoe, kayak and strength training clubs) in Highbrook, East Tamaki. The proposed facility will be built on land currently owned by the Highbrook Park Trust (council has two appointed trustees on the Trust). The land will be vested to council in 2015.
35. This site would be the base for regional high performance crews as well as South Auckland based school crews. The development also includes the provision for Auckland’s only 2000m rowing training course along the Tamaki River (on which a number of central clubs are based). The Proposed Auckland Draft Unitary Plan has identified the Tamaki River as a water sports precinct.
36. The Association has submitted a Central Facility Partnership EOI because of the facility’s regional focus. The Facility Partnership Policy allows for regional applications if the project has proven regional significance with high use by Auckland isthmus residents.
37. A regional facility for rowing was identified in the Auckland Regional Physical Activity and Sport Strategy as a priority for Auckland.
38. Given the growth in the sport and the lack of facilities available officers are recommending this project be progressed to stage two.
Auckland University Cricket Club
39. Auckland University Cricket Club is one of Auckland Cricket Association‘s largest clubs and is based at Colin Maiden Park (a park currently owned by Auckland University). The Auckland Regional Cricket Facilities Plan identifies the following objectives for Colin Maiden Park:
· use Colin Maiden Park for age group representative cricket
· review Colin Maiden Park as a potential site for the proposed High Performance Centre
· assess the future access for cricket in the immediate future
The Auckland Regional Cricket Facilities Plan also identifies a need to increase the quality of outfields for cricket grounds across the region and that there is a predicted shortfall of 2.6 pitches within the Orakei local board area by 2021.
40. The project is estimated to cost $208,500. Whilst the application budget in the EOI signalled the Club is seeking full funding from council (which is not a partnership project) the Club have signalled they would approach charitable trusts.
41. The area was last sand carpeted 15 years ago when irrigation, drainage and lighting was installed. Due to a lack of maintenance and upkeep to the surface it now becomes water-logged resulting in the ground often being closed. The current standard of the surface restricts its use for match games. Improving the surface will enable the use of the field to be increased.
42. The Club has applied for funding to recarpet part of the park known as E block. The sale of the park raises questions about the ongoing tenure for the Club. Officers have asked for more information to ensure the Club could provide certainty of tenure and provide community access for the given period, which is a requirement of Facility Partnership grants. Officers have been notified by Club representatives, that the Club does not have tenure and is not in a position to offer any ongoing commitment to community access.
43. In the EOI, the Club mentions that the University of Auckland (owners of the site) has known about the requirement to re-carpet the cricket pitch for the past three years but has been unable to do so due to budgetary constraints. Without certainty of the future of the site and the inability to provide certainty of community access (a requirement of the Scheme), officers do not recommend this application progress to stage two.
44. Officers do not recommend this application progress to stage two.
Auckland University Rugby Football Club
45. The Auckland University Rugby Football Club based at Colin Maiden Park (a park owned by Auckland University, which is currently for sale) is seeking funding for repairs and maintenance (such as cleaning the building, carrying out building and roof repairs, painting the building and creating an accessible ramp) to the clubhouse.
46. Officers have asked for more information to ensure the Club could provide certainty of tenure and provide community access for the given period, which is a requirement of facility partnership grants.
47. Over the last 10 years, the Club has neglected maintenance of the clubhouse due to financial restraints. The work has been quoted at $336,100 and the Club is seeking full funding from the Council but are investigating other avenues including a loan.
48. The guidelines refer to the ability of a project to seek funding from other providers and evidence of an agreed minimum level of funding raised by the organisation as criteria to prioritise proposals and minimum requirements. Seeking full funding from the council is not a partnership project.
49. This project does not provide increased opportunities to expand its core activity and meet wider community outcomes. Replacing like with like is considered to be maintenance which not eligible under the 2012/13 Guidelines. The Club is also unable to provide certainty of the future of the site and the ability to provide certainty of community access, which is a requirement of the fund.
50. Officers do not recommended that this application be progressed to stage two.
Eastern Sports Club
51. Eastern Sports Club is a multisport complex located on Orakei Domain with Teachers Eastern Rugby Football Club, touch rugby and the Achilles Bridge Club. The Club is in discussions with Grammar Carlton Rugby Club regarding a possible amalgamation, which will assist with maximising the use of the facilities.
52. In 2006, the Club completed an upgrade to the men’s toilets. As part of the fire report the Club commissioned it was suggested they provide lift access so that the building would meet the 1991 Building Act requirements.
53. The installation of the lift is estimated to cost $71,943. The Club is seeking $35,152 from council with the remaining $23,081 required for the project coming from within the Club. This application was declined in 2012/2013, as a lift was not seen as a priority project for the Central Facility Partnership Scheme.
54. Discussions with the regulatory department indicate a lift is not a regulatory requirement but would bring the building up to current building code standards.
55. The provision of a lift does not provide increased opportunities to expand its core activity and meet wider community outcomes as a sole application and not part of a larger scale redevelopment project.
56. Officers recommend this application not be progressed to stage two. However, officers suggest talking with the Club regarding the amalgamation and what the combined future needs may be.
Eastern Suburbs Gymnastics Club
57. The Club purchased a property in 2005 on Apirana Avenue, Glen Innes. Auckland City Council approved a Facility Partnership grant of $600,000 towards the $1.8 million purchase and fit out of the new premises. Auckland City Council also approved a loan. As part of the terms and conditions of Council’s funding, Council has secured 20 years of community access.
58. The Club has continued to experience growth in both Club members and through community run programmes supported by the amount of infill housing and new developments such as Stonefields occurring within the Club’s catchment area. The Club has been working with Sport Auckland to develop its capability and planning and is identified by Gymsports (the national organisation) as a pivotal facility.
59. During the 2013/2014 round the Central Facility Partnership Committee approved a feasibility study grant for $25,000 for the Club to investigate how best to grow the business (either to redevelop or look at developing on a green fields site). A summary of the feasibility study will be reported to the Committee at the April 2014 meeting as part of the grant accountability.
60. At the time of submissions closing the feasibility report had not been finalised however as the capital grants Facility Partnership scheme is only opened once per year the Club wished to submit an EOI with further information on the exact nature of which option being presented with stage two rather than waiting until 2015 before being able to start the project.
61. Given council’s investment in the facility partnership feasibility study grant officers recommend this project progress to stage two. However, officers recommend notifying the group that the indication of seeking a $1.3 million grant is unlikely. The funding budget for the 2013/2014 Central Facility Partnership round is $1.5 million.
Elevate Christian Disability Trust
62. Elevate Christian Disability Trust is a Trust that assists people with disabilities develop life skills and is based in Onehunga. The Trust has recently upgraded the buildings and is seeking funding to develop disability friendly landscaping (on private land) in Onehunga. In particular, the Trust is planning to add a pergola, water feature, sensory garden, fencing, amending cracked paving, creating a vegetable garden and seating, which would be available to the wider community.
63. During the 2012/2013 round the Committee resolved to decline the application as gardens and landscaping were not seen as a priority area.
64. The application for the 2013/2014 round is similar to its 2012/13 application. Officers are recommending the application not be progressed to stage two, as the application does not provide increased opportunities to expand its core activity and meet wider community outcomes already provided by the Trust for the community.
Ellerslie Eagles
65. The Ellerslie Eagles is a long established (1912) rugby league club that has a council lease at Ellerslie Domain (a council reserve). The Club has a large 790m2 building that has deteriorated through a lack of regular maintenance and upkeep to the point that the Club currently does not meet current building compliance standards.
66. The Club used to host a number of other sports however as the building deteriorated other codes found new facilities to base themselves. The Club would like to create a multiuse facility.
67. The Club is seeking $9,900 for urgent geotech, engineering and plumbing assessments and a further $30,000 for feasibility into the major building redesign.
68. The first part of the application is ineligible. The fund only provides funds for geotech, engineering and plumbing works as part of a larger application for capital works rather than as stand-alone works. This part of the application is below the minimum project criteria of $50,000. Funding assessments and/or design does not guarantee that the project will commence and that ratepayers will receive increased community access to an identified asset.
69. The second part of the application requests feasibility funding. The Facility Partnership feasibility applications are not open and will be considered with stage two applications in 2014.
70. Officers are recommending that the Club apply for a feasibility study when applications open and work with Auckland Rugby League, Sport Auckland and officers on the application.
Ellerslie Play Centre
71. The Ellerslie Play Centre is a parent co-operative that provides parent education, equipment and facilities for early childhood education and play (0-6 year olds). The Centre has been in the local area for over 60 years. Centres belong to a governing association but are run by parent volunteers. Children attend the Centre accompanied by a volunteer who takes an active role in the operation for at least two mornings a week. The Centre is also a NZQA provider and hosts a number of courses and qualifications and is available for other community uses.
72. The Centre is undertaking a refurbishment project that includes addressing storm water issues, issues with the piles of the building, the removal of asbestos cladding, replacing rotten windows, improving disability access and creating a separate administrative area in order to meet current licensing requirements. The project has been quoted at $160,307 of which they are seeking $52,768 from council.
73. The Centre has raised $19,068 of its own funds via fundraising for the past two years, with a further $88,000 from grants ($75,000 from the Northern Regional capital works Scheme (a play centre funding mechanism), $4,000 from the Lion Foundation, $4,000 from Four Winds and is awaiting the outcome of a ASB community Trust application for $20,000).
74. The Centre’s lease had a final expiry of 31 August 2013. Officers are currently processing a new lease for the Centre. Approval is required by the Local Board and any grant would need to be conditional on such. Landowner approval for the works has already been granted from council.
75. The Centre has submitted a full proposal rather than an EOI as they are close to raising all the necessary funds for the project and would like to start in December 2013. If a project approaches council for the final part of funding for a project and council supported the project, the Committee could approve a grant at this assessment stage.
76. Officers acknowledge that play centres play an important role within the community and commend the group on having advanced the project so far. However, some of the elements applied for are replacing like with like which is considered to be maintenance and not eligible under the guidelines.
77. The Centre is restricted on the number of families that can attend by their licence requirements. The Centre is already at capacity and this project does not provide increased opportunities to expand its core activity and meet wider community outcomes.
78. Officers are therefore recommending declining the request for $52,768 and recommending the Centre apply for local board funding subject to securing tenure for the site.
Great Barrier Island Community Heritage and Arts Village Trust
79. The Great Barrier Island Community Heritage and Arts Village Trust promotes and showcases art and heritage of the local Island. The Trusts focuses on the promotion of art, education, lectures, classes and seminars through the gallery and preservation of three heritage buildings. The Trust is the only community art gallery on the Island and is part of a wider development for a heritage village attracting approximately 8,000 visitors per year.
80. The Trust has been loaned a small collection of heritage items. The Trust currently does not have adequate space for the display of the collection and is seeking to create a larger space to display the collection.
81. This application is for stage four (repairs to internal walls, floors, ceiling and insulation). Stage four is estimated to cost $78,752 and the Trust is seeking full costs from council.
82. In 2010/11 council provided two grants to the value of $16,997 with a further $47,894 in 2012/13 for earlier stages of this project.
83. This project will increase tourist numbers and interest within the local community but this project does not provide increased opportunities to expand its core activity and meet wider community outcomes. The Policy refers to the ability of a project to seek funding from other providers and evidence of an agreed minimum level of funding raised by the organisation as criteria to prioritise proposals and minimum requirements. Seeking full funding from the council is not a partnership project.
84. Officers are recommending this proposal not be progressed to stage two.
Great Barrier Island Sports and Social
85. The Great Barrier Island Sports and Social Club began in the 1970’s operating a community building with the aim of providing sport, recreation and events for locals and tourists. The Society purchased 10 acres of land (which later became a rugby field, tennis/netball court, softball diamond, cricket pitch and children’s playground) and fundraised to develop the current clubrooms. Council contributed $250,000 to the project in 2004 through this Scheme, securing 10 years of community access.
86. Today the Society has approximately 250 members (of an Island community of approximately 800). The community uses the current facilities for around 25 hours per week.
87. The Society has three buildings on the property. A clubroom, conference room and generator shed. All three buildings are in need of work. The Society is requesting a grant of $92,000 to refurbish and upgrade the facilities.
88. The work described in the EOI is replacing like with like which is considered to be maintenance and is not eligible under the guidelines.
89. The Society is seeking full funding from the council. The Policy refers to the ability of a project to seek funding from other providers and evidence of an agreed minimum level of funding raised by the organisation as criteria to prioritise proposals and minimum requirements. Seeking full funding from the council is not a partnership project.
90. Officers are not recommending this project be progressed to stage two.
Maungawhau (St Barnards Scouts)
91. Maungawhau (St Barnards) Scouts is a long established Scout group based in Mt Eden. The group is planning to upgrade and renovate the hall and carry out routine maintenance as part of the project. The project would involve replacing the gable, recladding the building and reconfiguring the internal rooms. The project is estimated to cost $195,000 of which they are seeking $95,000 from council. The remainder of the funding necessary for the project would come from other charitable trusts and fundraising.
92. Located on the Mt Eden Domain, which is part of the Maunga (volcanic cones). The current lease had a final expiry of 3 November 2013. The implications of the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill Settlement Act is currently being worked through.
93. Currently if a tenant has a right of renewal on its lease council are actioning these. Fully expired leases such as this one will roll over on a month by month basis until the Collective is ready to make decisions on these tenants. The Scouts have been notified of this change.
94. As such, this means that the Scouts cannot provide certainty of tenure and in effect community access for the given period of time, which is a requirement for Facility Partnership grants, and are unlikely to be given landowner approval for the development. Officers are recommending that this project not be progressed until tenure of the site can be confirmed.
Mt Albert Baptist Church
95. Mt Albert Baptist Church is undertaking a major redevelopment of the site. The focus of the development is to provide multipurpose community spaces for existing and future outreach and care services.
96. The Church is planning to carry out the development as a multi-staged project and is seeking funding towards the first stage, which includes a large auditorium, public lounge, kitchen, bathroom, car parking, walkways, landscaping. The Church has estimated this stage of the project to cost $2,250,000 and is seeking $200,000 from council.
97. The Church is directly opposite the council-owned Mt Albert Recreation and Community Centre and Mt Albert War Memorial Hall. Both of these facilities offer public spaces for hire and neither are currently at capacity.
98. Officers are therefore not recommending this application progress to stage two.
Mt Eden Tennis Club Incorporated
99. The Mt Eden Tennis Club Incorporated has six courts and a Club facility with approximately 400 members. The Club would like to increase the clubroom community access use. Currently the clubrooms are used by yoga and pilates groups. The Club have a lease until 2020. The Club is seeking to replace the leaking roof, install insulation and upgrade the quality of the kitchen, bathrooms and function room.
100. The project is estimated to cost $63,000 with the Club proposing to contribute $5,000 towards the works with the remaining $58,000 being sought from council.
101. Replacing like with like is considered to be maintenance which not eligible under the guidelines. This project does not provide significant increased opportunities to expand its core activity and meet identified wider community outcomes.
102. It is suggested that this project not be progressed to stage two and that officers advise the Club to investigate local board funding for the project.
Ponsonby District Rugby Football Club Incorporated
103. Ponsonby District Rugby Football Club is a long established growing Club. The current facilities are used for approximately 68 hours per week by a number of organisations. They currently have a lease until 2027. The Club would like to replace the sawdust indoor ground surface (which has to be replaced every two years) with an artificial surface. This will assist with increasing hours of usability and the number of community groups who can access the facility. The project is estimated to cost $200,000 with $70,000 allocated to improving parking and paving. Of the $200,000 required the Club is seeking $180,000 from council.
104. The Auckland Regional Football Facility Plan 2011-2021, names Ponsonby, Herne Bay, Pt Chevalier and Westmere as priority areas of need for artificial turfs. The Plan identifies Cox’s Bay and Seddon fields as potential sites to serve these priority areas.
105. A key point in their application is that this project will reduce the pressure/usage on the outer fields at Western Springs. Council has proposed investment for artificial turfs at Western Springs Stadium outer fields through the Sports Field Capacity Development Programme. Investment in the outer fields would benefit the Club as well as allow for greater community access to playing time.
106. Given there is already investment proposed in this area, officers are not recommending progressing this project to stage two.
St Heliers Bay Pony Club
107. The Club is required to relocate as the Crown has transferred ownership of its current site at 111 Kepa Road in Orakei to Ngati Whatau Orakei Reserves Board. The Board has given the Club until June 2014 to relocate with a possibly extension to June 2015.
108. Council is currently working with NZ Equestrian and NZ Pony Club to develop an Auckland Equine Facilities Plan. It is suggested that this work be completed first to assist with informing the future of equestrian and pony club facilities.
109. Given the Club has no confirmed site, tenure or budget and this project is in the infancy stage it is recommended that this project not be progressed to stage two at this time and be resubmitted when more information can be provided. Officers will also discuss with the Club whether a feasibility study application may be more appropriate.
The Auckland Performing Arts Centre of Western springs (TAPAC)
110. The TAPAC complex was opened in 2003, as the result of a partnership between Western Springs College, the Performing Arts School of NZ, and a Facility Partnership grant of $1,150,000 from Auckland City Council. The centre currently provides four dance and drama studios, and a flexiform theatre space for community performing arts education, secondary school students and members of Auckland’s professional performing arts and dance communities. Use has grown to over 135,500 visits per annum with the facility open for 95 hours a week of community access.
111. TAPAC’s proposal incorporates three upgrades: a disability access ramp at the entrance, an accessible and safe theatre seating block and a mezzanine level storage space back of stage area. The project is estimated to cost $277,223. They have not completed the section regarding what amount of the project they are seeking from council.
112. TAPAC successfully applied for a $100,000 Facility Partnership grant in 2010 to upgrade disabled access to the building and carry out alternations to the theatre. In June 2012, the Waitemata local board approved a partial change in purpose of the grant from carrying the universal (disabled) access facilities to carrying reconfiguring the main foyer bathrooms in accordance with a request from the group.
113. Given a grant was initially approved for the first two of these requests and then at the applicants request the use was prioritised on other projects officers do not support the first two requests. The request for storage is unlikely to increase the number of people using and participating in the arts at TAPAC.
114. This application does not address capacity issues and therefore officers are recommending this application not be progressed to stage two.
Three Kings Football Club
115. Three Kings is New Zealand’s largest football club with approximately 7,300 members/players. The Club has been planning a development for some years, as its current facilities are inadequate given the growth the Club has experienced. In 2010, the Club applied to the Auckland City Council Facility Partnership scheme requesting funding for its development.
116. At the time, the Committee supported the project in principle but it was not considered to be adequately progressed to commit funding to.
117. Since this time, officers have worked with the Club to further develop plans as part of a wider piece of work on Keith Hay park concept plan 2012. One of the drivers behind the preparation of the concept plan, was to determine a new location for the clubrooms for the Club.
118. The public notification of the draft concept plan also included specific details about the council’s intention to provide a new lease to the Club and the parameters of that lease. The local board supported the development of a building with a gross ground floor area of approximately 900m2, which is predominantly single storey with potentially a second storey accommodating club administration functions.
119. The building will incorporate public toilets and changing facilities for park users. It is also anticipated that additional areas will be taken up to accommodate 600 spectators alongside the No.1 field and a covered deck to the north and east of the building that will be open to the public.
120. Further support is indicated in the Auckland Regional Football Facility Plan 2011-2021, which names Keith Hay Park as a potential site to address the lack of playing fields in Mt Albert, Morningside and Mt Eden.
121. The project is estimated to cost between $2.5million and $3million (which includes $175,000 tagged to fitout). The Club has secured $200,000 towards the project and is seeking 50% of the project costs from the Facility Partnership scheme. The shortfall of approximately $1 million will be raised from applications to funding agencies.
122. Raising $1 million from charitable organisations in today’s funding environment may be challenging and it is recommended that officers work closely with the group on the funding plan.
123. Officers are recommending that this project progress to stage two. However, officers recommend that a Facility partnership grant of $1.5 million is unlikely. The funding budget for the 2013/2014 Central Facility Partnership round is $1.5 million.
Waiheke Island Rudolf Steiner Education Trust
124. The Waiheke Island Rudolf Steiner Education Trust is based on Waiheke Island. The Trust operates a small licensed kindergarten, provides support and education to parents through classes and is available for community groups to hire the facility. Currently there are around a dozen community groups utilising the facilities.
125. The Trust would like to expand its operations to host craft groups, playgroups, providing a small library and the ability to hire out its facilities. The Trust has completed community surveys, which show strong support for the development. Following the survey results, the Trust developed an options paper that identified various four possible development options. After consideration of the options the Trust has decided to progress with the development of a kitset building. The proposed single storey kitset building would be located on the same site as the kindergarten.
126. The project is estimated to cost $209,000. The Trust has raised $20,500 and is seeking the balance ($188,500) from council.
127. Council recently undertook a community needs facility assessment on Waiheke Island. The review does not support a case for further facilities on the Island. It identified that there is capacity for increased use of existing facilities and that improved networking and coordination between facilities would encourage this.
128. Officers are recommending this application not be progressed to stage two.
YMCA of Auckland Incorporated
129. The YMCA of Auckland Incorporated is proposing to replace the stadium roof, upgrade the kitchen, foyer disability access, toilets/shower and reconfiguring the existing spaces such as the fitness centre to maximise space at their Pitt St centre. Consents have been lodged which means that the funding timeframe for the Facility Partnerships scheme may not align with the YMCA’s.
130. The project is estimated to cost $850,000 of which they are seeking $400,000 from council. The YMCA is not seeking funding from any other charitable organisations.
131. The project scoped in the application is largely replacing like with like is considered to be maintenance which not eligible under the guidelines. This project does not provide increased opportunities to expand its core activity and meet wider community outcomes however, officers would like to enter into discussions with the YMCA regarding the site and future vision and possible future applications.
132. The central city area has and will continue to grow significantly in population and diversity. Research of residents living in the CBD has identified the need for further formal and information recreation opportunities, both through the provision of facilities and programmes. One avenue to meet these needs is through developing partnerships with existing providers in the CBD area.
133. Council is currently developing a community facilities network plan. This plan will provide a greater understanding of existing council facilities, gaps and opportunities.
134. Officers are recommending that this application not be progressed to stage two until the network plan is competed and that officers enter into further discussions with the YMCA about its site, partnering opportunities and their position within the network with the possibility of the YMCA applying for a feasibility study to investigate these options further.
Deferred projects from 2012/2013
135. During the 2012/2013 funding round the Committee resolved:
“d) That the Central Facility Partnerships Funding Committee defer the following
applications to the next funding round:
Ellerslie Sports Club Incorporated
|
The demolition of the old toilets at Michaels Ave Reserve and the development of a new club room facility and public toilets.
|
$500,000 |
Defer consideration of the application and request that the applicant further scope and cost the project. Officers will work with the group to assist. |
Te Papapa Onehunga Rugby Football and Sports Club
|
To add changing rooms, a first aid room, public toilets, offices, training rooms and improve access to the squash courts
|
$600,000 |
Defer consideration of the application and request that the applicant further scope and cost the project. Officers will work with the group to assist. |
Ellerslie Sports Club Incorporated Update
136. Ellerslie Sports Club Incorporated is the overarching umbrella for Ellerslie Association Football Club and Ellerslie Cricket. They currently lease part of the YMCA building located at Michaels Ave Reserve (a Council reserve). Council adopted a master plan for Michaels Ave in 2008 after extensive community consultation. The plan incorporates the provision artificial field in 2012/13 (stage 1), upgrade of lower fields with sandcarpets and field lights (stage 2 to be completed in 2013/2014) public toilets, new changing facilities and clubrooms (stage 3). The implementation of the concept plan is a staged approach to provide great quality playing surfaces, greater field capacity and improved amenities. Stage 1 and 2 have been completed.
137. Council has lead the design process for the development in partnership with the Club. Council budget allowed for the development of the designs for stage 3 (which includes the whole building with the intention that council would fund the public amenities on the lower level and the Club would raise funds for the top level) but no budget was allocated to the capital development. The Incorporation sought a grant to assist with the development of clubrooms as part of the 2012/13 Facility Partnership round.
138. In principle the Committee supported the project however as no council budget was confirmed for the public amenities (lower level) the project was unable to progress and the Club’s Facility Partnership application was deferred.
139. Officers meet with local board and the Club representatives in June. While the local board confirmed its support in principle for the project and for funding the construction of the lower half of the building, the local board do not have budget allocated for this. It was agreed that until there is council budget available for the lower half, the Club is unable to construct the upper storey and that based on current information officers would not be recommending funding be allocated to the project.
140. A number of outcomes were agreed to ensure the project does progress in future years. These were:
· to clarify the quantity surveyor split so each party had a clearer idea of the financial commitments
· for council to detail what renewal budget may be available
· for council to review the condition survey of the existing ablution block
· for an agenda report be written to the Local Board outlining funding options
141. Officers are recommending that the Club continue to work with officers and the local board and once funding has been allocated for the lower level, they consider reapplying.
Te Papapa Onehunga Rugby Football and Sports Club Update
142. Te Papa Onehunga Rugby Football and Sports Club Incorporated is a large multi-use sports centre based at Fergusson Park, Onehunga. The Club would like to develop the clubrooms by creating two changing rooms, public toilets, an office, storage rooms, meeting rooms and improve the access to the squash club. The Club sought a $600,000 grant in the 2012/13 round towards the $700,000 project. They are planning to raise $100,000 (of which they have secured $20,000) through fundraising and applying to charitable trusts. The Committee resolved that the project be deferred and that officers report back at the Committee’s next meeting.
143. Since the last Committee meeting officers have met with the local board and the Club on several occasions to discuss the project. The local board currently has some budget within the renewals plan for the provision of public toilets on Fergusson Domain and is considering the best location. One of the options the Local Board is considering is to contribute to the Clubs project.
144. Regardless of whether the local board decide to incorporate public amenities into the design the Club are in a position that they will need to fundraise for the remainder of the project. The progression of this project is not reliant on the funding of the local board and therefore officers recommend the $300,000 that was carried over from the 2012/13 round be allocated to this project.
Requirements for Stage Two of the 2013/2014 Funding Round
145. Officers will work one-on-one with applicants that are progressed to stage two. Applicants will have until 28 March 2014 to submit a full proposal.
146. A report updating the Committee on the projects progressed to Stage two will be presented in a workshop in April 2014 for funding consideration.
Update on 2012/2013 and legacy Central Facility Partnerships projects
147. Below is a summary table of the 2012/2013 grants allocated. As a number of these grants expire on 30 June 2014 officers will provide a full report at the next Committee meeting in 2014. At this meeting the Committee will be asked to make decisions regarding extending or withdrawing these grants.
Table 1: Summary of legacy grants
Legacy grants |
Project |
Expiry date |
Grant Amount |
Additional Grant Conditions |
Project Status/ Updates |
St Heliers Community Centre and Church |
Large scale redevelopment of the existing site |
30 June 2014 |
$1,250,000 |
NIL |
Currently awaiting consents. |
Nga Hau Maiangi |
Pontoon development and new club redevelopment at Ian Shaw Reserve |
30 June 2014 |
$1,250,000 |
NIL |
Currently awaiting consents. |
Royal Akarana Yacht Club |
Redevelopment of the existing site at The Landing |
30 June 2014 |
$1,000,000 |
NIL |
May be requesting an extension. Still negotiating a FPA. |
Mt Albert Aquatic Centre |
Learn to swim pool |
30 June 2014 |
$650,000 |
NIL |
Trust meeting on 22 November re the FP grant. Verbal update to be given at workshop. |
Tri star gymnastics club |
Stage two development and fitout of the mezzanine section. |
30 June 2014 |
$650,000 |
NIL |
Currently seeking final funding needed for project. May request amendments to project scope to fit project within funding raised. |
Avondale School Swimming Pool |
Learn to swim pool |
30 June 2014 |
$1,000,000 |
NIL |
Fundraising and revising project scope to reduce project cost. |
2012/13 round – CAPITAL GRANTS |
|
|
|
|
|
Barrier Social Club |
To replace the leaking roof |
30 June 2014 |
$20,000 |
Applicant to contribute at least 5% of the project costs from their own funds. Due to smaller scale of activities on Great Barrier, the minimum is waived. |
Issue with grant. See detail below |
East City BMX Club |
Funding to upgrade and improve the track and facilities at Merton Road Reserve |
30 June 2014 |
$150,000 |
Three piles of soil on the boundary of Howard Hunter Avenue are moved; the club retrospectively gets a resource consent for the pile of soil sitting south of the existing BMX track; any new soil brought to site be tested for contaminants before it is brought to site. |
Club planning to start in November 2013. |
Epsom Girls Grammar School - Indoor Sports Gym |
Funding towards indoor court space |
30 June 2014 |
$200,000 |
MOE and BOT evidence of approval |
Fundraising. Planning to commence in December 2013 |
Mt Roskill Grammar School - Artificial Playing Surface Trust |
To fix damage to the underlay of the existing turf and replace the existing turf with a water turf |
30 June 2015 |
$400,000 |
MOE and BOT evidence of approval |
Fundraising |
Friends of Onehunga Community House |
Restoration of Room 7, upgrading car parking and installing a new fence |
30 June 2014 |
$45,000 |
That a facility partnership grant of $45,000 or 50% of the costs to renovate room 7 (which ever is the lesser) be approved for The Friends of Onehunga Community House with the Friends of Onehunga Community House raising the remaining funds. |
Fundraising |
Ponsonby Cruising Club |
|
30 June 2014 |
$25,000 |
Lift access |
Fundraising |
West End Lawn Tennis Club |
|
30 June 2015 |
$250,000 |
|
Fundraising |
2012/13 round – FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANTS |
|
|
|
|
|
Auckland Badminton Association and Auckland Table Tennis Association |
Feasibility study for Auckland Table tennis and Auckland Badminton Association for a study into a shared space on the existing site. |
NA |
$30,000 |
NIL |
|
Auckland Deaf Society |
Feasibility study to investigate the development of a community centre on the Balmoral site |
NA |
$35,000 |
NIL |
Scope approved for consultant and draft report due in early 2014. |
Eastern Suburbs Gym Club |
Feasibility study to asses purchasing a new building vs. developing the current building |
NA |
$25,000 |
NIL |
Draft report currently being reviewed. Summary of final report to be presented to Committee at the 2014 meeting. |
Maungarei Community Christian Trust |
Feasibility study to extend the use of the existing land and buildings to operate a community centre |
NA |
$25,000 |
NIL |
Scope approved for consultant. |
Barrier Social Club Incorporated 2012/13 Grant
148. The Central Facility Partnership Committee resolved at it last meeting a $20,000 grant for the Barrier Social Club to fix a leaking roof at the Barrier Social Club subject to the group contributing at least 5% of the project costs from its own means. Concurrently, the Club applied to the local board for funding for the project. The local board granted and has paid into the Club’s bank account a grant of $30,000 for the project, bringing the total council contribution committed but not uplifted to $50,000. The project is quoted at costing $46,812. This means that council has committed in grants more than the full funding for the project (an additional $3,188 before taking into consideration the Committee’s resolution requiring the Club to contribute a minimum of $2340 of its own funds to the project).
149. Officers are therefore recommending that the Facility Partnership resolution be amended to give a grant up to $14472.
Table 2: Summary of funding for Barrier Social Club
Project Cost |
$46,812 |
Local Board Grant |
$30,000 |
5% group contribution |
$2,340 |
Facility Partnership Grant as per resolution |
$20,000 |
Overpayment |
$5528 |
Recommended revised grant amount |
$14,472 |
Consideration
Local Board Views
150. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee is represented by a member from each of the seven central Local Boards. The projects will be discussed at a workshop of the Committee on 27 November 2013.
Maori Impact Statement
151. The Facility Partnerships scheme is a general programme of interest that is accessible to a wide range of groups, including Maori. No particular implications for the Maori community or Maori stakeholders have been identified as arising from this report.
General
152. The decisions sought by this report are within the delegated authority of the Central Facility Partnership Committee, and do not invoke the Auckland Council Significance Policy.
Implementation Issues
153. All applicants identified to progress to stage two will be notified and officers will work with the organisations. Full applications will be presented to the Committee at a workshop and committee meeting in April 2014. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing and officers will advise the reasons for the applications being declined.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Clare Sarney – Sport and Recreation Advisor |
Authorisers |
Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation Sharon Rimmer - Manager Recreation Partnerships Programmes and Funding Lisa Tocker - Manager, Recreation Facilities & Service Delivery Central Judith Webster - Relationship Manager |