Agenda of Environment and Community Committee

Environment and Community Committee

08 August 2017

Coastal Management Framework for the Auckland Region

File No.: CP2017/08953

Purpose

1. To approve the Coastal Management Framework for the Auckland Region.

Executive summary

2. Auckland is characterised by 3,200km of coast with high environmental, social, cultural and economic value. However, the complexity of coastal processes combined with the pressures associated with coastal erosion, climate change, future growth and limited funding pose significant management challenges for Auckland Council.

3. During the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, a high level of feedback was received on issues relating to coastal management. On 7 May 2015, the Budget Committee requested an erosion, sea level rise and inundation study to be presented back to the committee in response to the Long-term Plan feedback (resolution BUD/2015/53).

4. Subsequent discussions with the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee led to the agreement of the key principles for a coastal strategy, including:

· A systems approach – the awareness that the whole system needs to be considered for a strategic outcome

· A 100 year timeframe – the use of a longer time horizon to enable sustainable, strategic decision-making

· Climate change impacts embedded into approach – to ensure sustainability and resilience

· Appropriate technical solutions – consider a range of effective solutions, and communicate to local boards, mana whenua and the community as to why they are or are not effective.

5. The driver for the principles was to develop a way of thinking that went beyond current day approaches, to ensure consideration of natural drivers, future change and funding constraints when considering coastal management projects.

6. A draft coastal management framework for the region was then developed to provide a best practice, operational framework for making decisions around coastal management in Auckland. The framework recognised the need for a consistent and coherent approach that provides for mana whenua, cultural and community values. In December 2015, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the proposed coastal management approach for Auckland, as well as the use of coastal compartment management plans (resolution REG/2015/101).

7. Since this resolution was passed, staff have received feedback from the 21 local boards on the draft coastal management framework. All local boards have indicated their support for the completion of the framework and proposed criteria for decision-making.

8. Engagement with mana whenua is ongoing through the monthly Infrastructure and Environmental Services hui. To date, mana whenua have supported the approach as outlined, acknowledging that more hui to refine detail and application of the framework are still required.

9. Under the coastal management framework, the Auckland coastline has been broken down into large scale coastal management cells, and criteria for the identification of high priority coastal management areas or ‘hot spots’ has been developed. The identified hot spots will guide follow-up liaison with local boards to agree how best to take forward the coastal compartment management plans work programme and any urgent works.

10. To assist with good decision-making, a draft multi-criteria analysis tool has been developed that encapsulates a range of social, environmental, regulatory, technical, economic, health and safety values when planning for the effective management of Auckland’s coastline. Mana whenua values are being incorporated across the multi-criteria analysis through the ongoing engagement process.

11. This report provides an updated coastal management framework for the approval of the Environment and Community Committee, and seeks endorsement for the preparation of a separate report to the Finance and Performance Committee which will consider the requirement for regional funding to inform the Long-term Plan.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the Coastal Management Framework for the Auckland Region.

b) endorse the development of regional funding options to address issues of coastal erosion, inundation and safety, as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Comments

Background

The Auckland Coast

12. Auckland has the largest population density to coastline ratio in New Zealand. It is characterised by 3,200km of dynamic coastline, 21,000km of rivers and streams, and 26 coastal regional parks.

13. Over the past decade, a significant proportion of Auckland’s development and supporting infrastructure has been concentrated towards the coast, with much of the urban part of the region sited on a narrow isthmus of land between the Manukau and Waitematā Harbours. Modification and development has been undertaken in a range of coastal environments including immediately landward of eroding soft sedimentary cliffs and on lowlands behind beach systems.

14. Coastal hazards for Auckland exist in the form of coastal erosion (including coastal cliff instability), coastal inundation (during storms and flooding events), and tsunamis. The magnitude of their impact differs considering the diverse character of Auckland’s coastal margin, the dynamic nature of driving coastal processes, the influence and level of human modification, and the future impacts of climate change.

15. For effective long-term coastal management, understanding changing risk over time is paramount. This highlights the need to understand and address the impacts of climate change, human modification and future growth. The effects of climate change will place increasing pressure Auckland’s coasts resulting in increased maintenance costs, reduced performance and in some instances failure of our existing coastal structures (including seawalls, rock revetments, jetties and wharfs). Considering the associated economic pressures, council must consider their appropriate maintenance and renewal requirements. In addition, new structures require careful consideration to ensure sustainable and holistic future management of Auckland’s coastline.

16. There are a number of key coastal management challenges for Auckland Council, including coastal hazards, the changing coastline, and the role of Auckland Council in managing these coastal challenges. Each of these aspects are briefly described below and further discussed in the Coastal Management Framework for the Auckland Region (see Attachment A).

Auckland Council’s Coastal Management Roles

17. Auckland Council’s coastal management roles can be broken down into three key components: regulation, asset management, and emergency management. With respect to council’s regulatory role, council’s response to coastal management, hazards and climate change is governed by a hierarchy of statutory documents as summarised in Appendix B of the attached coastal management framework.

18. Auckland Council manages many assets which include council’s coastal defenses, esplanade strips, reserves and coastal infrastructure. Management of council’s coastal assets includes consideration of a broad range of factors including the regulatory framework, community, stakeholder and mana whenua values, funding availability, legal, health and safety obligations and technical considerations.

19. Finally, Auckland Council has a role under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002) to improve and promote sustainable management of hazards and to provide for responses in an emergency.

Coastal Management Framework

20. The importance of effective coastal management is emphasised by Auckland’s diverse coastline combined with the region’s exposure to a range of coastal hazards. The potential impacts of climate change will exacerbate such hazards and place increasing risk on Auckland’s coastal population, infrastructure and other assets.

21. The technical limitations and costs associated with reactive coastal management techniques highlight the need for sustainable management of Auckland’s coasts. It is therefore imperative to carefully consider the future location, design life and purpose of new assets based on an appreciation of the entire coastal system.

22. Coastal management is a sensitive topic given the diverse and sometimes conflicting social, economic and environmental values that the coastal environment provides. With coastal and climatic issues presenting a significant future risk and management cost to Auckland, mana whenua and stakeholder needs must continue to be included in the decision-making process to find appropriate solutions.

23. During the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, feedback was received on issues relating to coastal management. Specific discussions on the Orewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Project highlighted this issue as not just a site specific but also a regional priority.

24. As a result of this Long-term Plan feedback, the Budget Committee resolved the following at its 7 May 2015 meeting:

Resolution number BUD/2015/53

MOVED by Chairperson LCM Brown, seconded by Cr J Watson by way of addition:

l) note the urgent requirement to remedy erosion problems in Orewa and address this as part of a wider erosion, sea level rise and inundation study to be brought back to council by August 2015, noting that funding for consents is available.

25. A workshop on coastal issues was subsequently held with members of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 6 August 2015, where key principles for a ‘coastal strategy’ were discussed and agreed. These have been embedded into the draft coastal management framework.

26. On 3 December 2015, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the following resolution:

Resolution number REG/2015/1

MOVED by Cr LA Cooper, seconded by Cr MP Webster:

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the coastal management approach for the Auckland Region and the associated supporting principles.

b) approve the use of coastal compartment management plans (CCMPs) as the key vehicle to implement a regional approach to coastal management.

c) approve the development of a communication plan to raise public awareness of coastal management issues, including climate change.

27. Following these resolutions from the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, staff have engaged with local boards and mana whenua on the revised coastal management framework. Staff are now ensuring that the coastal management framework will articulate mana whenua, environmental, social, cultural and economic values of the Auckland coast. These are not static values and will be continually expanded and adapted through ongoing consultation.

28. The draft ‘coastal management strategy’ has been finalised and renamed the ‘Coastal Management Framework for the Auckland Region’ as directed by Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in 2015.

Aims and Objectives

29. The aim of the framework is to develop a best practice, operational coastal management framework for Auckland. Based on the challenges outlined in this report and the outcomes from the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee workshop, a series of high level objectives have been identified for the framework:

· Provide guidance on the process required to develop a framework to coastal management

· Develop a multi-criteria analysis tool to assess coastal management responses that is clear, transparent, and takes account of diverse Auckland Council drivers including mana whenua values

· Enable a long-term, balanced perspective of coastal management and climate change issues to facilitate an environmentally and financially sustainable approach

· Promote a sound understanding of coastal hazards, climate change and coastal assets in Auckland and provide and plan for sound technical information to facilitate robust and defensible decisions

· Promote public understanding of coastal hazards and climate change.

30. Key principles to underpin this framework have been developed with input from the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee - as detailed below:

· A systems approach – the awareness that the whole system needs to be considered for a strategic outcome

· A 100 year timeframe – the use of a longer time horizon to enable sustainable, strategic decision-making

· Time or event dependent options – the acknowledgement that the future vision for the coast may not be achieved in one step, and that interim measures are acceptable

· Climate change impacts embedded into approach – to ensure sustainability and resilience

· Appropriate technical solutions – consider a range of effective solutions, and communicate why they are or are not effective

· Principles need to be developed outside specific project issues

· The adoption of a consistent decision-making process.

31. Through refinement of this framework, a series of additional principles have been identified in relation to health and safety and alignment with regulatory documents.

32. To achieve the overarching aim of the framework, a series of key tools are required which give effect to these strategic principles. In summary, the key tools are:

· Coastal compartment management plans

· Asset management plans and input into council’s Long-term Plans

· Council operational policy

· Technical guidelines and standards

· Continual information and knowledge

· Multi criteria decision-making tool.

33. Coastal compartment management plans take a systems-based approach to comprehensive, long-term planning of the coastal zone. The coast has been broken down to large scale sediment cells. Within each coastal cell, the coast is further broken down into key sub-cells, within which long-term management policies (such as doing nothing, hold the line, managed retreat) are defined across a range of timeframes. This enables an integrated approach to be undertaken, where the impacts of management decisions are assessed within the context of the wider cell.

Consultation and Collaboration

34. A collaborative approach is necessary across the council family, and staff are working closely with local boards to ensure that site-specific coastal hazards are coherently and strategically managed.

35. Māori values and engaging with mana whenua is an important component in the development and implementation of the coastal management framework. By continuing to incorporate mana whenua values, it is hoped the framework can support mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of the land, water, wahi tapu and tāonga and will ultimately provide for mana whenua to be a part of the decision-making process.

36. The current challenge facing local government across New Zealand is how to shift attitudes and behaviours around adaptive coastal management solutions such as managed retreat – the deliberate process of realigning hard coastal protection structures to restore coastal processes. Recent discussions with the community on coastal management options in the Auckland region have highlighted a need to invest in the understanding Aucklanders have of coastal hazards and climate change.

37. To promote public understanding of coastal hazards and climate change support and ultimately build a more resilient Auckland, a communications plan will be developed to raise awareness of coastal management issues. This plan will leverage off existing council platforms and communication plans such as those developed by Civil Defence and Emergency Management.

Conclusions

38. The dynamic nature of the Auckland coast combined with the complexity of coastal processes and the future uncertainties associated with climate change and future growth reinforces the need to manage the coast in an appropriate and sustainable manner.

39. The key conclusions of the framework are as follows:

· A strategic approach to coastal management for Auckland Council is required and is founded by the Coastal Management Framework for the Auckland Region. Appropriate aims and objectives have been developed and a series of tools to deliver them identified

· Overarching principles to be embodied in all works associated with the coastal framework are clearly defined

· Coastal compartment management plans are a key tool for implementing high-level strategic approaches (such as doing nothing, protect, managed realignment and adapt) to managing Auckland’s coastline

· A multi-criteria analysis tool has been developed to support option development and delivery to assist in future coastal management decision-making in a collaborative and consultative way

· A communications plan will be developed to raise public awareness of coastal management issues.

40. There is a need to invest in our continual understanding of coastal hazards and climate change to build on our current foundation to inform future decision making

41. It is acknowledged that there is a need to consider the region-wide budget implications of the approaches outlined in the Coastal Management Framework. A separate report which will set out the options for a regional fund, including opex requirements, required to deliver a series of coastal compartment management plans, will be prepared for the consideration as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

42. Prior to the development of the coastal management framework, a number of local board plans (including Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Rodney, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, and Waiheke) directly referenced coastal issues, including erosion and the need for better management of coastal assets.

43. Discussions with local boards in regards to regionally significant projects (such as the Orewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Project, Huia Domain, and Karaka Harbourside seawall installation) have also confirmed strong support for the development of a region wide approach to prioritised coastal management. In addition, coastal erosion and coastal management were key advocacy points for some local boards during the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, leading to resolution BUD/2015/53 as detailed earlier in this report.

44. As part of the development of this framework, workshops were held with all 21 local boards. Local board consultation assisted in the identification of key values to be included in the multi-criteria analysis and preliminary identification of coastal management hotspots. Discussions with local boards have enabled confirmation of their support of the framework and their ongoing input into coastal compartment management plans, including potential budgetary considerations.

Māori impact statement

45. The development of this framework is of significant interest to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s natural environment. The relationship between natural resource management and cultural wellbeing, giving effect to kaitiakitanga and the integration of mātauranga Māori are central to this interest. Māori values, and engaging directly with mana whenua, will play a key part in the development of appropriate coastal management options.

46. Three Infrastructure and Environmental Services hui have been held since July 2016. At least another three hui with mana whenua will be held to develop a deeper appreciation of mana whenua values, to apply the values to the management of the coastline and to ensure they are in keeping with tikanga Māori. It is envisaged hui will develop strong foundations for an enduring partnership with mana whenua.

47. The framework outlines a commitment to recognising and providing for Māori values and tikanga (traditions) with respect to land, water, wahi tapu and tāonga. The following commitments are incorporated in the framework:

· Recognises and involves mana whenua in coastal management decision-making and planning processes as treaty partners and kaitiaki

· Provide opportunities for an increased level of meaningful engagement around management of coastal resources and landscape responses

· Engage mātauranga Māori and design principles in research and design of coastal management systems.

Implementation

48. The aim of this framework is to give council a mechanism to prioritise coastal management, adopting sustainability principles, to best manage council resources and budgets. This will enable budget prioritisation to take place.

49. More investment will be required for specific projects and related management responses across the region, including the delivery of coastal compartment management plans, and this will be outlined in a separate report as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

50. The related costs for that work programme are dependent on the results of the investigations, reviews and prioritisation exercises described in the framework, which will be communicated back to the local boards and mana whenua following the Environment and Community Committee’s approval of the prescribed approach.

51. Staff will continue to engage with mana whenua as partners throughout the implementation of the framework.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Coastal Management Framework for the Auckland Region	21

Signatories

Authors

Natasha Carpenter – Principal Coastal Specialist

Jarrod Walker – Principal Coastal Specialist

Paul Klinac – Team Manager Coastal and Geotechnical Services

Authorisers

Sarah Sinclair – Chief Engineer

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

08 August 2017

Public Art Gift Offer (Teed Street Sculpture, Newmarket)

File No.: CP2017/13955

Purpose

1. To consider the public art gift offer to be sited in Teed Street, Newmarket.

Executive summary

2. In November 2016, the Newmarket Arts Trust offered a sculpture to Auckland Council’s public art collection. The offer was to pay for the commissioning of a public artwork by artist Ray Haydon, to the value of $50,000 to be sited in Teed Street, Newmarket.

3. Mr. Haydon’s artwork, titled Heliograph, is a tall vertical metal sculpture topped by a kinetic spiraling red form. The sculpture reference different layers of Newmarket’s history by:

· acknowledging the Māori history of the area through its symbolic referencing of Te Ti Tutahi (the lone cabbage tree)

· acknowledging the early industry of the area, in particular Hayes Metals Limited

· using red at the top of the structure to recognise the generations of Chinese families who have played a role in developing Newmarket.

4. Staff assessed the gift proposal against the Public Art Policy (2013) outcomes and found it aligns with outcome area three:

‘For all Aucklanders and visitors: public art that delights, welcomes challenges and inspires’.

This outcome area focuses on work that commemorates local histories and stories, and provides people with opportunities to contribute to placemaking in their own communities.

5. On 29 June the Advisory Panel for Art in Public Places, Auckland (APAPPA) was informed of the plan to accept and install the artwork.

6. The Newmarket Arts Trust’s contribution of $50,000 fully covers the artwork and structural foundation costs.

7. The ongoing operational maintenance costs are estimated to be under $500 per annum, and can be funded by the 2017/2018 art collection operating budget of $642,433.

8. Future capital renewal costs are estimated to be minimal over its 30-year lifespan. These costs can also be accommodated by the 2017/2018 Art Collection capital budget of $307,489.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) accept the Newmarket Arts Trust offer of a public artwork by artist Ray Haydon for siting in Teed Street, Newmarket.

Comments

Background

9. In November 2016, Newmarket Arts Trust (NAT) approached Auckland Council and offered a small public artwork to the value of $50,000, to be sited in Teed Street.

10. The offer of the artwork was triggered by the upgrade of Teed Street. The upgrade is part of the Waitematā Local Board’s Newmarket Laneways Master Plan. Construction began in May 2017 and will continue for approximately eight months. The improvements include the addition of:

· native tree plantings

· bio-retention tree pits

· new outdoor seating and dining areas

· wider and safer footpaths

· safer crossing locations.

11. Staff undertook a public consultation for the art work and used stakeholder feedback to determine the final design, which included space for a new artwork on the upgraded street.

12. The Development Programmes Office (DPO) of Auckland Council is leading the upgrade. Council’s DPO and Public Art Team, and NAT have collaborated over the past six months to determine feasibility of the artwork, suggest sites within the streetscape for it, and agree on alignment of work programmes.

Public Art Policy

13. The Public Art Policy sets out the process for receiving offers of public art. In accordance with that policy, staff have:

· assessed the offer in relation to council’s desired outcomes for public art

· presented that assessment to the Advisory Panel for Art in Public Places, Auckland (APAPPA); an independent advisory panel to council.

14. As outlined in the Public Art Policy, the process for accepting public art gift offers into the city public art collection are considered within the context of a regional programme and are initially assessed by staff against Public Art Policy objectives following a formal proposal. Staff then seek a recommendation from the APAPPA; and a resolution is then required from the governing body, with landowner approval from the local board or Auckland Transport dependent on location.

The Newmarket Arts Trust (NAT)

15. The NAT was established by the Newmarket Business Association (NBA) 11 years ago to facilitate the development and installation of public art in the Newmarket precinct that would then be gifted to Auckland. The trust has previously contributed four artworks to the council’s public art collection – Reuben Paterson’s Andale Andale (2014) on Remuera Road; Seung Yul Oh’s Globgobs (2010) on the corner of Teed and Osborne Streets; Virginia King’s Sliver (2007) on Broadway; and Terry Stringer’s The World Grasped (2006), also on Broadway.

16. The trust commissions artwork that distinctively enhance Newmarket’s public realm and reflect local history and stories (of both settlers and mana whenua) to provide a legacy for Aucklanders.

The artwork

17. Ray Haydon is a recognised artist who has an established sculptural practice. His personal connection to the Newmarket area spans almost seven decades. He was born in Auckland in 1950 and has lived in the Newmarket/Parnell area ever since. For 25 years he worked as a silversmith and during this time he built a longstanding relationship with the Hayes Metal works in Teed Street.

18. The trust selected Mr. Haydon from a shortlist of artists to create a work for Teed Street.

19. The commissioned sculpture is a new work created in response to a brief from NAT which was developed following advice from council staff. The brief specified the completed artwork must:

· respond to the site’s environment and reference Newmarket

· be of appropriate scale and durability for the public environment

· contribute to outcomes aligned to the Public Art Policy.

20. Mr Haydon’s artwork, titled Heliograph, is a tall vertical metal sculpture topped by a kinetic spiralling red form (see attachment A). The sculpture is intended to reference different layers of Newmarket’s history by:

· acknowledging the Māori history of the area through its symbolic referencing of Te Ti Tutahi (the lone cabbage tree)

· acknowledging the early industry of the area, in particular Hayes Metals Limited, which was located opposite where the work is to be sited

· symbolically recognising the generations of Chinese families who have played a role in developing Newmarket by using bright red on the ribbon-like form at the top of the sculpture.

Artwork dimensions and positioning

21. The DPO, upon recommendation from its design team, has selected the site for the artwork in collaboration with NAT. It is approximately half way along the southern side of Teed Street located on the pavement. The proposed location of the artwork is illustrated in Attachment B.

22. When installed the artwork will be 1000mm at its widest point and 4200mm high. The base of the artwork is marine-grade stainless steel, 300mm x 300mm at ground level, tapering to 80mm x 80mm at 3000mm high. A 1200mm kinetic section attaches to the top of this base and is made of red powder-coated aluminum. The sculpture would sit on a discrete concrete foundation embedded during the streetscape upgrade. It will not inhibit the use of pathways or view shafts and sits clear of the carriageway.

Staff assessment of the gift proposal

23. Staff assessed the gift proposal and found the artwork proposal aligns with the Public Art Policy outcome area:

‘For all Aucklanders and visitors: public art that delights, welcomes challenges and inspires’.

- The gift proposal aligns with this outcome area because it commemorates local stories and culture. It also provides the arts trust with a means of contributing to its local civic space.

APAPPA advice on the public art offer

24. The public artwork offer was presented for feedback at APAPPA meetings on 6 December 2016, 26 January 2017 and 27 April 2017. The site selected for the artwork by the DPO in collaboration with NAT was also shared with the panel. The panel recommended the artwork should respond specifically to the location and alternative sites should be investigated for the siting of the work, such as the street’s gateways. The panel’s advice was aimed at ensuring optimal outcomes for both the experience of the artwork and, in turn, the artwork’s contribution to the streetscape environment. The panel’s recommendations were fed back to NAT.

25. NAT provided a written rationale for the artwork regarding its particular relationship to the area, and advised staff of their preference for the site agreed with the DPO.

26. Staff considered APAPPA feedback and NAT’s views, and took in to account the long-standing relationship between council, NBA and NAT.

27. Staff recommended that the APPAPA accepted the artwork into council’s art collection, at the site agreed between the DPO and NAT. At an APPAPA meeting on 29 June 2017, the panel accepted the recommendation.

Aligning the public art work programme with Public Art Policy

28. The regional public art work programme prioritises projects that deliver on Public Art Policy outcomes and contributes to Māori outcomes. The work programme also prioritises projects based on:

· the ability to leverage funding

· the scale of the opportunity

· achievability

· staff resource required to deliver individual projects relative to budget allocation

· long-term impact

· project lifespan

· fit with town centre growth and development programmes.

Other prioritisation criteria include projects that cover a range of locations and different types of work; for example a stone sculpture, a sound work or a lighting work.

The regional public art work programme

29. In setting the work programme, staff acknowledge the need to be able to respond to occasional offers of smaller works from Auckland’s communities. The number of such requests is small in number and acceptance is subject to the processes outlined in the Public Art Policy.

30. The regional public art work programme includes an annual line item for gift offers in order to provide enabling ways to involve partners and communities in delivering council services. Funding covers incidental costs associated with accepting gift into the collection; such as extra installation requirements, consenting, project management, photography and cataloguing.

Ongoing maintenance costs of the artwork

31. NAT’s $50,000 fully covers the artwork and structural foundation costs.

32. The ongoing operational maintenance costs are estimated to be under $500 per annum, and can be funded by the 2017/2018 art collection operating budget of $642,433.

33. As the artwork is constructed of metal, future capital renewal costs are estimated to be minimal over its 30-year lifespan. These costs can also be accommodated by the 2017/2018 art collection capital budget of $307,489.

Staff recommendation

34. Staff recommend the Environment and Community Committee accept the Newmarket Arts Trust (NAT) offer of a public artwork by artist Ray Haydon for siting in Teed Street, Newmarket, to become part of Auckland Council’s art collection.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. The proposed location of the artwork on Teed Street in Newmarket is within the Waitematā Local Board boundary.

36. The DPO have led a number of conversations with the Waitematā Local Board on Teed Street artwork gift offer proposal. The local board supports the proposal.

37. Arts, Community and Events staff will update the local board on the gift offer and timelines for installation at monthly meetings.

Māori impact statement

38. The artwork acknowledges the Māori history of the area by directly referencing Te Ti Tutahi (the lone cabbage tree). The original cabbage tree stood at the corner of Mortimer Pass and Broadway. The tree was sacred to Māori and was a well-known landmark in the area.

39. Infrastructure and Environmental Services have consulted Mana whenua about the Teed Street upgrade and the incorporation of an artwork at the monthly hui. Mana whenua support the principal of an artwork in Teed Street and support the gifting of the artwork from the NAT.

Implementation

40. If the committee approves the recommendation, the artwork will become part of the Auckland Council family. Staff will aim to have the artwork installed by late November 2017, based on current scheduling of the physical works of the Teed Street upgrade project.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Heliograph Detail Design	121
b ⇩	Newmarket Laneways - Teed Street Proposed Artwork Location	127

Signatories

Author

Richard McWha - Manager Sector Engagement and Production

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

08 August 2017

Auckland Council's position and role in improving, ending and preventing homelessness

File No.: CP2017/14815

Purpose

1. To decide on Auckland Council’s position and role in relation to improving, ending and preventing homelessness.

Executive summary

2. This report responds to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee’s request in September 2016 for “further policy work to determine council’s role and position in addressing homelessness, including emergency housing” (REG/2016/90). The scope was agreed by the Committee in February 2017. It does not include interventions to address housing supply and demand factors.

3. The Statistics New Zealand definition of homelessness includes people living without shelter (rough sleepers), in temporary accommodation or sharing temporarily, and people living in uninhabitable dwellings.

4. Analysis of 2013 census data by the University of Otago (the University) found that 20,296 people were homeless in Auckland, an increase of 26 per cent since 2006. Based on the average increase between censuses, and excluding all other factors, homelessness could stand at 23,409 in 2017, and 26,522 by 2021.

5. The rapid growth of Auckland’s population is out stripping growth in the supply of housing. Housing affordability (for rent and purchase) is declining, and there is significant unmet demand for social, affordable and emergency housing. The problem cannot be solved without addressing supply.

6. There are significant adverse consequences for those at risk of, or experiencing homelessness, and wider impacts on communities, business and the image of the city. Consequently, there is a high level of public, media and political concern and growing demand for Auckland Council to do more.

7. Homelessness has a complex set of determinants, and requires a coordinated cross-sectoral response. Auckland Council contributes significantly, but in the absence of a cross-sectoral plan and clear leadership, there are significant gaps.

8. Four options for Auckland Council’s position and role have been considered. They progress from low tolerance (which would be to do less), case by case (the status quo), responsive (strengthening established levers) and progressive (focusing on affordable housing).

9. Options 3 and 4 address the gaps, and are presented for a decision. Option 4 is widely supported, but the role of central government and the potentially prohibitive costs are acknowledged. Option 3 is therefore the preferred option.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) agree that Auckland Council’s preferred position and role on homelessness is:

either

i. Option 3 (preferred): A responsive approach where homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurring^{^[1]}, and the council’s role (in addition to the status quo) is to strengthen established levers, with a focus on:

· Strategic leadership, including a cross-sectoral homelessness plan

· Inter-sectoral coordination in terms of a shared vision and goals

· Systematic integration of homelessness into relevant policies and regulation

· Development of a sustainable funding base

· Monitoring and evaluation.

ii. Option 4: A progressive approach where (in addition to Option 3) the council’s role is to increase the supply of social and affordable housing, with partnerships to deliver integrated health and social services. The focus would include:

· Development of an affordable housing strategy

· Investigation and implementation of opportunities to deliver more social housing

· Formalising partnerships with central government agencies and non-government organisations (NGOs) for the delivery of integrated health and social services.

b) request the Chief Executive to report back to the Committee with an implementation plan (for either option), including:

· Establishing mechanisms to engage with cross-sectoral agencies

· Analysis of relevant housing demand and supply

· A more detailed stocktake

· A shared purpose statement and high level, cross-sectoral plan

· Costings

· A monitoring framework.

Comments

Background

10. This report responds to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee’s request in September 2016 for “further policy work to determine council’s role and position in addressing homelessness, including emergency housing” (REG/2016/90). In February 2017, the Community Development and Safety Committee approved the scope (ENV/2017/13) which included reporting back on:

· improving, ending and preventing homelessness

· the main causes and drivers of homelessness, and its relationship to the broader housing system

· the scale, severity and nature of homelessness in Auckland

· the international experience and what has worked

· engagement with key stakeholders to identify the most effective roles for the council.

11. A full report responding to this resolution can be found in Attachment A.

12. The scope of this project did not include interventions to address housing system supply and demand factors as illustrated in Figure 1.

13. The report applies the Stats NZ 2015 definition of homelessness. This includes living:

· without shelter, e.g. rough sleeping or in vehicles

· in temporary accommodation, e.g. emergency, transitional or boarding housing

· in shared accommodation temporarily with a household, e.g. couch surfing

· in uninhabitable dwellings, e.g. garages.

14. Prevalence statistics are based on analysis by the University of Otago (the University) using census data, supplemented with data from service providers. There are limitations arising from non-participation, reliance on self-reporting (and reluctance to disclose true living situations) and a five year lag between censuses.

Figure 1: Homelessness, the housing system and the scope of the report

Consideration

Problem definition: Unmet demand for housing is impacting heavily on vulnerable people

15. Figure 2 shows that there were 20,296 homeless people in Auckland in 2013, with a breakdown across the dimensions of homelessness. The group of people living in uninhabitable housing is possibly the largest, and this number is unknown.

Figure 2: The number of homeless people in Auckland across the continuum (2013)

Source: Amore, 2016.

16. Based on the average increase between censuses, and excluding all other factors, homelessness could stand at 23,409 in 2017, and 26,522 by 2021.

17. Auckland City Mission’s 2016 annual street count of rough sleepers within three kilometres of the Sky Tower, found 177 and a further 51 in emergency accommodation or hospital who would otherwise have been on the street. This was an annual increase of over 50 per cent.

18. A recent report from Yale University placed New Zealand at the top of homelessness rates in the OECD^{^[2]}.

19. Nationally, low income households, children and young people (51 per cent), and sole parent families (43 per cent) were the most affected groups. Pacific people were ten times, and Māori five times more likely than Europeans to be homeless. Other groups who are affected include rainbow youth, people with mental health problems, those who have experienced family violence or been in state care, and inmates on release from prison.

20. In 2013, there were 203,817 Aucklanders (92,000 households) living in overcrowded^{^[3]} conditions, and accommodation was classified as unaffordable^{^[4]} for 44 per cent of people renting. These groups are not classified as homeless, but are particularly vulnerable.

21. There are many negative health, social, cultural and economic impacts for those who experience homelessness. In particular, children can experience serious health consequences and disruption of their education.

22. Homelessness also impacts on communities, businesses, and the image of the city. There are costs associated with greater need for health and social support services, justice and financial benefits.

23. There is a high level of public, media and political interest with growing demand for central and local government to do more as part of a collective effort^{^[5]}:

We have a wicked problem but we have an opportunity to change it now before it gets more complex. Our numbers are small enough that we can solve this problem today.

Homelessness is a very sad situation … we should never accept homelessness especially when children, the disabled, sick and elderly are involved.

Te Puea Marea steps up to find cancer teen and family a home.

A teenager battling cancer ended up homeless with the rest of her family after moving to Auckland to receive treatment. The Facebook post said it "all went downhill from there":

I wasn't able to swallow, I got infections, I had two massive seizures. I had to have antibiotics and that led to kidney problems so not only do I have cancer, I have kidney problems.

The family moved to an Aunty’s house, but there were 15 people staying there. Her father went to WINZ and told them about his daughter with cancer:

They did nothing. He went to Housing NZ, told them. They couldn't find us a house. Too full, they said, too full. I hope we get a house. So we can all live again. So my Dad can go back to work. He's a hard worker.

In winter 2016, the family stayed temporarily at Te Puea marae before a Housing New Zealand home in West Auckland was found.

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11659501 Accessed 24 July 2017

24. Media stories reflect the following themes:

· Increasing numbers of homeless people, particularly people who are employed or studying, and families with children

· Increasing rental costs, and provision of poor quality (uninhabitable) accommodation

· The housing supply crisis, including few emergency options

· Concerns about the impact of behaviours (such as begging) on business and tourism

· High levels of government expenditure on emergency accommodation such as motels.

25. Homelessness is a complex issue. It results from multi-layered structural and individual factors including national policy settings and economic conditions, immigration, access to health and social services, discrimination, family violence, employment and poor health.

26. A key driver however is the housing market, particularly unmet demand for social and affordable housing. This is highlighted by recent estimates^{^[6]} that the government will spend $50 million nationally on emergency housing (such as motels) in 12 months.

27. As housing supply pressures increase, people with fewer risk factors face homelessness, as illustrated in Figure 3. One risk factor or one event such as job loss, illness, the end of a relationship or debt, can be the trigger. The housing shortage means that people endure homelessness more often and for longer, and achieving sustainable housing can be difficult.

28. Nationally, 52 per cent of homeless adults were working, studying or both.

29. If housing supply met demand, homelessness would be “rare, brief and non-recurring”, but currently homelessness is increasing faster than the growth of housing supply.

Figure 3: Structural and individual determinants of homelessness

Current state: Auckland Council supports multi-agency response to homelessness

30. The roles of central government, local government, NGOs and the private sector are described in Section 7 of Attachment A. Central government has primary responsibility for the provision of social housing and financial support for accommodation.

31. Auckland Council contributes positively to addressing homelessness. Activities include:

· Monitoring: Wider housing research conducted by RIMU, and funding for evaluation.

· Coordination: Participation in cross-sectoral groups such as the Rough Sleeping Steering Group, and provides some coordination at an operational level.

· Policy and regulation: Regulations which impact on the housing supply (e.g. building compliance) and more directly on homelessness, e.g. the Public Safety and Nuisance bylaw. The findings of the current review of this bylaw will be presented to the Regulatory Committee on 14 September 2017, with recommendations on whether the bylaw should be confirmed, amended or revoked. Similarly, on 10 August 2017, this committee will receive a report seeking a decision on whether to further investigate a freedom camping bylaw. The council response to the Mayoral Taskforce Report is also likely to include policy work to investigate tenure and ownership mechanisms that improve housing affordability. The Māori Housing Action Plan is currently being finalised.

· Provision of assets and amenities: Housing for older people, parks and amenities for public use, and design of urban spaces which can reflect varying degrees of tolerance.

· Funding and service delivery: Table 1 includes a summary of funding contributions. Beyond 2017/18, the annual funding commitment falls to $565,287.

32. The Housing First Auckland pilot is the city’s flagship initiative. Based on an established collective impact model, it is a partnership between central and local government and NGOs. It runs for 18 months from March 2017 in central, south and west Auckland. It aims to support 472 people - approximately half of the current projected population (971) living without shelter in the region. The evaluation will provide evidence on the challenges of delivering the programme in a constrained housing market. Ongoing funding support will need to be determined when the pilot ends in 2018.

Table 1: Summary of funding for delivery of services from 2015/16 to 2019/20

Activities	Timeframe (FY) and budget allocation
	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20
Housing First (one-off contribution)		$1million
James Liston Hostel upgrade, increase in beds		$2million
Mayor’s budget: cross-sectoral collaboration including Housing First data collection			$500,000	$500,000	$500,000
LTP 2015/25: emergency housing coordination, inner city amenities, outreach, Awhina website, evaluation activities	$360,000	$360,000	$110,000
LTP operational delivery by Community Empowerment	$53,624	$53,624	$66,937	$65,287	$65,287

What could be improved? The key gap is a cross-sectoral strategic plan

33. Homelessness is a very difficult issue to turn around. It requires collective efforts to address the housing supply, and to provide support services for at-risk and vulnerable individuals (or households). The impact of any solution is unlikely to be significant in the short-term.

34. The current response is positive but it is not at a scale that matches the problem. In the absence of an integrated cross-sectoral approach, there are gaps and opportunities to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of available resources.

35. Based on analysis of selected case studies to identify “best practice”, and a systems gaps analysis, a comprehensive response to homelessness in Auckland would include:

· Strategic direction and leadership across the sector based on collective impact principles, including a regional and/or national homelessness strategy

· Clear, shared vision and goals, e.g. the position that “homelessness should be rare, brief and non-recurring”

· Sustainable funding for implementation

· Improved coordination, particularly at a strategic level

· Systematic monitoring to inform investment

· Increased supply of emergency, social and affordable housing

· Consideration and inclusion of homelessness in relevant policies, e.g. housing strategies, rental security, bylaws and design guidelines

· Targeted interventions including employment support and provision of amenities.

36. In addition, stakeholders wanted to see Auckland Council take a stronger leadership role, and more collaboration with central government. They wanted to maintain the focus on rough sleeping, and increase the focus on other forms of homelessness across the region. They also sought a balance across improving, ending and preventing homelessness, with emphasis on prevention and early intervention.

Options: Auckland Council’s position and role in improving, ending and preventing homelessness

37. Four options are presented on a continuum requiring increasing commitment from the council. They represent an increasing response to the identified gaps. The position sets the direction for the council and shapes the response to homelessness. The role describes the council’s responsibility, and functions that would be needed to achieve each position.

Option 1: Low tolerance

Position	Actively discourages homelessness and associated behaviours through exclusion, enforcement and deterrents such as the design of public spaces.
Role	The council would ‘do less’ than it currently does. It would involve a mix of policy, regulation and design to manage the symptoms of homelessness, with responsibility for the key determinants of homelessness left to central government.
Strengths	Formalises the position of council for future decision-making. It may address some localised community concerns in the short term.
Risks	The approach shifts rather than addresses homelessness, and may cause perpetual displacement of homeless people. Internationally, this approach has been described as expensive, inappropriate, and futile. It would address some community concerns, but would receive little support from stakeholders. The council has limited ability to establish or enforce the necessary regulations (bylaws, issuance of fines), and would have to rely on police intervention (for infringement powers) or rely on the courts to prosecute. The costs of increased compliance and enforcement are unknown.

Option 2: Case by case

Position	The range of responses is determined on a case by case basis, responding to issues and requests as they emerge. There is no formalised policy position.
Role	The council continues to contribute through its traditional role with ongoing implementation of the status quo activities. Includes allocation of $5.6million (over five years) to FY2019/2020. Future funding would be sought on an ad hoc basis.
Strengths	Continues Auckland Council’s positive contribution within the council’s traditional role. It addresses some needs of homeless people, and some community concerns. The Housing First pilot is promising, and the evaluation will inform future efforts. Minimises responsibility and associated costs for council, and increases expectations of a response from central government and other agencies.
Risks	The response is ad hoc and not well aligned with evidence and best practice, resulting in limited impact and value for money. Uncertainty for council governance and staff, the sector, community and homeless people. There is no long-term funding commitment, including funding for Housing First beyond completion of the pilot. The status quo is not supported by stakeholders.

Option 3: Responsive (preferred option)

Position	Council will strengthen its available levers to help make any occurrence of homelessness in Auckland rare, brief and non-recurring^{^[7]}
Role	In addition to the ‘status quo’ (Option 2), the council would be more responsive to the needs of homeless people, including providing or supporting: · Strategic leadership and coordination · A cross-sectoral homelessness strategy, with shared vision and goals · Monitoring and evaluation · Systematic integration of homelessness into relevant policies and regulation · Development of a sustainable funding base.
Strengths	It is supported by the evidence and best practice, and aligns with the council’s current funded homelessness interventions, such as Housing First. Is within the council’s mandate and acknowledges central government’s role. Development and implementation of the first phase could be absorbed within existing policy and operational team capacity. It meets the needs of homeless people (without the use of “hard enforcement”), and community concerns.
Risks	The council’s role would be constrained by existing, limited resources. Costs of additional initiatives in the proposed implementation plan are unknown.

Option 4: Progressive

Position	Council will expand its mandate to play a lead role in increasing the supply of social and affordable housing, and will form partnerships to deliver integrated health and social services to vulnerable people.
Role	In addition to the ‘responsive’ position (Option 3), the council would also: · Develop and implement an affordable housing strategy, which could include regulatory levers, incentives, and direct provision · Investigate and implement opportunities and incentives to deliver a greater proportion of social housing which could include new developments, including on council-owned land · Formalise partnerships with central government agencies and NGOs for the delivery of integrated health and social services.
Strengths	Focuses on the key determinants of homelessness, particularly housing supply. Is likely to achieve the best outcomes in relation to reducing homelessness. It aligns with an international trend in relation to affordable housing where public bodies are revising their role in the delivery of social and affordable housing e.g. Wellington City Council, Finland, Vancouver and Victoria.
Risks	A significant step outside the council’s mandate to intervene in areas where central government has primary responsibility. Would need higher and longer-term financial contribution, so would likely incur significant, potentially prohibitive costs for council. Would require significant policy development, with consideration of a wide range of issues, including social impact assessment.

38. Option 1 is the least responsive to the identified gaps, and does not adequately address the objective to improve, end and prevent homelessness. There was minimal stakeholder support for this option.

39. Similarly Option 2 does not respond adequately to the identified gaps. The status quo has limited focus on ending and preventing homelessness, and on forms of homelessness other than people living without shelter. Further, stakeholders expressed a strong desire for the council to do more.

40. Accordingly, no further assessment has been undertaken on Options 1 or 2.

41. Options 3 and 4 have been assessed against the following criteria:

· Addresses the identified gaps

· Effectiveness and impact on improving, ending and preventing homelessness

· Addresses the continuum of homelessness and priority groups, including Māori

· Supports cross-sectoral collaboration

· Provides a strong voice for Aucklanders.

Table 2: Summary of assessment of Options 3 and 4 against the criteria

	Option 3 Responsive “do more”	Option 4 Progressive “do a lot more”
	In addition to Option 2:	In addition to Option 3:
Addresses the identified gaps	Addresses the key gaps as far as possible within the council’s current mandate.	Addresses the gaps comprehensively, with a clear focus on the primary determinants – housing supply and services for vulnerable people.
Effectiveness and impact on: Improving, ending and preventing homelessness	Increases the focus on ending and preventing homelessness. Effectiveness will improve. However, the impact will be limited and delayed without a strong focus on the housing supply.	Increases the focus on prevention. Increasing the supply of affordable housing will have the biggest impact on homelessness outcomes.
Addresses the continuum of homelessness and priority groups, including Māori	A strategic plan would span the continuum of homelessness, with targeted interventions for priority populations, including Maori.	There would be a stronger focus on at-risk groups.
Supports cross-sectoral collaboration	A cross-sectoral strategic plan provides a shared vision and goals to galvanise a more cohesive, integrated approach. Provides a foundation to increase collective impact.	Represents a greater role for the council in the delivery and management of affordable housing. Would cross into central government responsibilities.
Provides a strong voice for Aucklanders	Provides clarity at a regional and national level on the position of Auckland Council. Provides a platform for a strong voice for Aucklanders.	Would solidify Auckland Council’s role as a lead agency in addressing affordable housing, and a stronger mandate to be a strong voice for Aucklanders.

42. Option 3 is the preferred option. It addresses the key gaps and fits with council’s mandate and current resourcing. It strengthens the impact of council’s activities by playing our role more effectively, while still relying on central government to address the housing supply. A shared vision and goals with coordination would galvanise a more cohesive and integrated cross-sectoral response. It is affordable in the short term, but more sustainable funding would be needed as current funding comes to an end. It signals an incremental approach, and would create a foundation to consider Option 4 in the future.

43. Option 4 would see the council expand its mandate, service delivery role, and financial commitment significantly by intervening in an area of central government responsibility. The impact would be delayed, but this approach would be the most effective and sustainable. It would require the council to commit much greater financial investment.

44. If Option 3 is supported, there may be a slower response to addressing the housing supply, which would limit the overall impact of homelessness interventions. If Option 4 is supported, significant council investment would be required. This would impact on resources available for other priorities.

Risk analysis

45. There are reputational and financial risks associated with the preferred option (Option 3).

Risk

Mitigation

Unrealistic expectations about how quickly the recommendations will impact on the nature and scale of homelessness. Progress towards ending and preventing is not likely to be realised in the short term.

· Continue status quo activities, including the Housing First pilot and evaluation.

· Identify short, medium and long term approaches and outcomes in the homelessness strategy.

· Communicate key messages to manage expectations.

The costs for council to implement additional initiatives as part of the proposed cross-sectoral strategy are unknown.

· Recommendations include the development of a sustainable funding base, which will require detailed costing analysis, identifying baseline and new funding initiatives.

· Potential savings, and opportunities for leveraging external funding will be also explored.

· Investment decisions will be informed by robust monitoring.

Local board views and implications

46. This phase of the project has not involved formal engagement with local boards. Local board members (and key informant interviewees) were invited to participate in engagement “walk-throughs”, where they had the opportunity to see the key findings of the research report, to respond to relevant questions, and to indicate their preference for the options. A summary of the feedback is included in Attachment B.

47. Local board members who attended the “walk-throughs” indicated a high level of concern and a strong desire to see an end to homelessness. They wanted to see:

· More health and social support for homeless people

· A regional and/or national strategy, with a coordinated response

· Council taking a stronger leadership role

· Innovative responses to address housing supply and to improve security of tenure

· Increased partnering with central government and the private sector.

48. They generally preferred Option 4, but acknowledged that funding may be prohibitive, in which case, Option 3 would be more feasible.

49. The key research report findings were also presented to the Waitemata Local Board and Auckland City Centre Advisory Board, who expressed similar views.

50. It is envisaged that the next phase will involve formal engagement with local boards.

Māori impact statement

51. Māori are disproportionately affected and have the second highest rate of homelessness, after Pacific peoples. In 2013, 32 per cent of the homeless population were Māori. Over 40 per cent of people on the social housing register are Māori^{^[8]}. Over 80 per cent of the Housing First participants in the central city are Māori^{^[9]}.

52. The report identified a range of additional complexities experienced by Māori including:

· Structural and historical disadvantage

· Multiple, cumulative risk factors across income, education, employment and health

· Lack of culturally appropriate services and support

· Discrimination, particularly in relation to securing rental accommodation

· Fewer housing options for larger families.

53. The report identifies Māori as a priority population with specific needs to be addressed. While the current homelessness initiatives often reach Māori, targeting is limited. The evaluation of the Housing First pilot will include analysis of the impact on Māori, and could inform future approaches. Options 3 and 4 provide greater scope to collaborate more closely with Māori organisations, and to deliver more culturally appropriate services.

Implementation

54. For either Option 3 or 4, staff will report back to the Committee with an implementation plan. This would include:

· Establishing mechanisms to engage with cross-sectoral agencies

· Analysis of relevant housing demand and supply

· Conducting a more detailed stocktake of current service provision and gaps

· A shared purpose statement and high level, cross-sectoral plan

· Detailed costings, including what could be done within current resourcing and interventions that could be prioritised subject to resourcing

· A monitoring framework.

55. The first phase (development of the implementation plan) would require 1.5 FTEs for six to eight months. The same resource would be required for coordination, monitoring and reporting to implement the plan. This could be absorbed within the baseline of the Affordable Housing Policy team. Funding for delivery of projects by the council would need to be sought through Annual Plan and Long-term Plan projects.

56. Staff will also continue to work together to consider the potential impact of the Public Safety and Nuisance and (potentially) freedom camping bylaws on homeless people, and agreed actions resulting from the Mayoral Taskforce report on affordable housing.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Addressing homeless in Auckland	143
b ⇩	Summary of walkthrough feedback	283

Signatories

Author

Kimberley Howell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Debbie Edwards – Manager Affordable Housing Policy Team

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

08 August 2017

PDF Creator

Environment and Community Committee

08 August 2017

Options to expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment

File No.: CP2017/12378

Purpose

1. To seek an in-principle decision to expand revenue streams to fund future sports facilities investment in the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan.

Executive summary

2. This report considers the adequacy of current revenue streams to fund sports facilities.

3. Population growth and diversity is leading to increased and changing demand for sport facilities at the same time that existing facilities are aging and may no longer be fit-for-purpose. The sector has also highlighted a funding gap for regional projects.

4. Auckland Council relies heavily on general rates and development contributions for current sport facilities investment. These revenue streams may be inadequate to cope with future demand. There are also legal constraints on how development contributions can be spent.

5. User fees and charges account for 12 per cent of sport and recreation revenue in Auckland compared with the New Zealand local authorities average of 32 per cent.

6. This report assesses three options to fund future sport facilities investment:

· Option 1: Maintain the status quo and reprioritise current investment to respond to growth and aging infrastructure

· Option 2: Increase rates and development contributions for investment in sport facilities

· Option 3: Expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment by:

- introducing new user fees or charges

- increasing revenue from community leases

- introducing new targeted rates

- generating revenue from commercial activities at council properties.

7. Staff recommend Option 3. It will provide a diverse and flexible range of revenue streams and increased funding for investment.

8. A preliminary analysis of these revenue streams shows general alignment with the council’s Revenue and Financing Principles.

9. This report seeks in-principle agreement to Option 3 so that these revenue streams are included in the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan. The objective of this plan is to ensure the delivery of sport-related outcomes for Aucklanders.

10. If approved, detailed policy will be developed for each of the revenue streams for approval during the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. A critical aspect to consider will be the financial burden on participants, sport clubs and the community. Staff will also assess the impact on the delivery of intended outcomes.

11. The draft Sport Facilities Investment Plan will be subject to public and local board consultation prior to finalisation and approval by the Environment and Community Committee.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) agree, in principle, to expand the current revenue streams to increase funding for sport investment through the Sports Facilities Investment Plan (Option 3) by:

· introducing new user fees and charges

· increasing rent revenue from community leases

· introducing new targeted rates

· generating revenue from commercial activities at council properties.

b) note the potential to consider an increase in development contributions during the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process

c) note that the draft Sport Facilities Investment Plan will be subject to public and local board consultation prior to finalisation and approval by the Environment and Community Committee.

Comments

Taking a coordinated approach to sports facilities investment

12. Auckland Council is taking a coordinated approach to its sports facilities investment in response to rapid population growth, changing preferences, as well as increasing resource and land supply constraints.

13. The Sport Facilities Investment Plan is being developed to guide council’s long-term investment in sports facilities.

14. Several key decisions have been made so far to assist the development of the plan.

· The primary desired outcome of future council investment in sports facilities is increased participation in sport and that the focus is on community sport and ensuring a basic level of provision in fit-for-purpose sport facilities [CP 2016/12613 and CP2016/12144].

· In-principle decisions were made to use grants and community leases as the main investment instruments for sport and refinement of current practice to increase efficiency, effectiveness and ensure better outcome delivery [CP2017/00192]. These will lead to one-off efficiency savings, which could be reinvested in new sport facilities.

· The development of an outcome measurement tool for council’s sport investment modelled on the Treasury’s Cost Benefit Analysis Tool [CP2017/03041].

15. This is the last policy report to inform the draft Sport Facilities Investment Plan. It focuses on council’s revenue streams to fund future sport facilities and complements existing projects to co-invest and co-deliver sport facilities in partnership with the sector.^{^[10]}

Problem definition: Funding challenges and constraints on revenue

16. Recent evidence shows there is a significant gap between the demand for infrastructure and council’s funding. Efficient and innovative infrastructure management will not be sufficient to solve the problem.^{^[11]}

17. There is clear evidence showing council is likely to face several funding challenges.^{^[12]}

· Limited revenue growth versus rapid population growth – Future revenue will have to grow substantially to keep up with rapid population growth. It is estimated that the population will reach 2 million people by 2033.^{^[13]}

· Competing strategic priorities – As financial pressures intensify, funding priorities are likely to shift away from sport investment towards more urgent, ‘high-profile’ infrastructure such as housing and transport.

· An identified facilities supply shortage – There is evidence showing moderate to acute supply shortages of sport facilities. In particular, north and central areas for cricket wickets, outdoor netball and tennis courts. There is a projected shortage of 42 indoor courts across the Auckland region.^{^[14]}

· Ageing facilities – The cost of maintaining current facilities (around 241 sport parks and 17 indoor courts) will increase as they age.

· Changing community needs – The demographic profile of Auckland is changing with a growing number of immigrants and older people. Existing facilities (for example, single use facilities) may no longer meet the needs of community. New facilities and renewals need to be flexible and adaptable to future demand changes.

18. The exact size of the future funding gap for sports facilities is difficult to estimate due to incomplete information at the sport code level.

Rates and development contributions are the main current revenue streams

19. Detailed sport facilities funding data is not currently available. At an aggregated level capital and operating expenditure for sport facilities is funded through the ‘Local Parks, Sport and Recreation’ and ‘Regional Parks, Sport and Recreation’ activity groups under the ‘Parks, Community and Lifestyle’ portfolio.

20. The portfolio accounts for $824 million (15 per cent) of the council’s 2017/18 Annual Budget. The ‘Local and Regional Park, Sport and Recreation’ activity groups account for $584 million (71 per cent) of the portfolio.

21. Most capital expenditure is funded by development contributions and debt. Eighty-three per cent of operating expenditure is funded by general rates.

Figure 1: Funding sources for the ‘Local and Regional Parks, Sport and Recreation’ activity groups

Capital expenditure Operating expenditure

22. There is likely to be a moderate to significant level of uncertainty when projecting future revenue and expenditure.

23. Development contributions are a relatively unstable revenue stream. The council will need to manage financial risks associated with fluctuations in the timing and level of development activity.

24. Development contributions can only be spent for the purpose for which they are charged, and expenditure is required to be caused by, and benefit, growth. They can only be used for capital expenditure (for example, open space acquisition and new sport fields). They cannot be spent on asset renewals or service level increases (for example, additional indoor courts).

25. Reliance on general rates and development contributions is common across local authorities. Local Government New Zealand noted that local authorities need to seek more flexible funding tools to respond to the challenges facing their communities.^{^[15]}

Options to meet future challenges

26. Staff have identified three options to fund future investment in sport facilities. These are:

· Option 1: Maintain the status quo and reprioritise current investment to respond to growth and aging infrastructure

· Option 2: Increase rates and development contributions for investment in sport facilities

· Option 3: Expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment by:

- introducing new user fees or charges

- increasing revenue from community leases

- introducing new targeted rates

- generating revenue from commercial activities at council properties.

Option 1: Maintain the status quo and reprioritise current investment

27. Option 1 entails reprioritising existing funding from rates and development contributions and reinvesting one-off efficiency savings from recent decisions back into sport facilities.

28. This option will not respond to the funding challenges council is likely to face. This may result in reduced sport participation and community outcomes in the medium to long-term.

29. However, this option will not lead to any disruption to the current system or immediate impact on participants, sport clubs and community.

Table 1: Main advantages and disadvantages of Option 1

Option 1 30. Maintain the status quo	Advantages	Disadvantages
No disruption to the current system. No immediate impact on participants, sport clubs and community. Clear signal to other potential investors.	Current sport investment will not be sufficient to meet growing demand. Any reprioritisation of investment would likely lead to reduced community and participation outcomes over time. A decreased level of provision and/or quality.

Option 1

30. Maintain the status quo

Advantages

Disadvantages

No disruption to the current system.

No immediate impact on participants, sport clubs and community.

Clear signal to other potential investors.

Current sport investment will not be sufficient to meet growing demand.

Any reprioritisation of investment would likely lead to reduced community and participation outcomes over time.

A decreased level of provision and/or quality.

Option 2: Increase rates and development contributions

31. Option 2 entails increasing rates and development contributions to fund investment in sports facilities.

32. There are significant issues with this option. In particular, council has resolved to cap rates increases. Further, there are a number of competing priorities for rates investment.

33. There is potential to consider an increase in development contributions during the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. However, there are legal constraints on the use of development contributions. This revenue stream can only be used for capital projects and only for certain types of sport facilities in growth areas.

Table 2: Main advantages and disadvantages of Option 2

Option 2 34. Increase rates and development contribution	Advantages	Disadvantages
Existing mechanisms. Council is better able to anticipate, and manage, impacts when using existing instruments.	Council has resolved to cap rates increases at 2.5%. Competing priorities for investment. Development contributions are an unstable revenue stream. Development contributions can only be used in growth-related areas for certain types of sport facilities.

Option 2

34. Increase rates and development contribution

Advantages

Disadvantages

Existing mechanisms.

Council is better able to anticipate, and manage, impacts when using existing instruments.

Council has resolved to cap rates increases at 2.5%.

Competing priorities for investment.

Development contributions are an unstable revenue stream.

Development contributions can only be used in growth-related areas for certain types of sport facilities.

Option 3: Expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment (Recommended Option)

35. Option 3 entails expanding the range of available revenue streams. Staff examined a range of potential new revenue streams (see Attachment A). Four are recommended:

· new user fees and charges

· rent revenue from community leases

· new targeted rates

· revenue from commercial activities at council properties.

36. Staff undertook a preliminary assessment of these revenue streams against the council’s Revenue and Financing Principles.^{^[16]} A summary of the findings is presented below and more detail is provided in Attachment A.

37. Several other revenue streams were considered but discarded due to practical reasons.

38. The main advantages of expanding the range of available revenue streams is that it provides greater flexibility and financial stability to council. There would be no constraints on where investments could be made in Auckland, or on the types of sports facilities council could invest in. Both capital and operational expenditure could be undertaken.

39. A broad revenue base, with multiple streams, would improve the council’s financial resilience. This would enable the council to provide greater certainty to the sport sector about ongoing investment and improve council’s ability to leverage other investment.

40. This option would also likely increase the total funding available for sports facilities investment. However, this would depend on tradeoffs with other investment priorities.

41. Introducing new user fees and charges would create moderate affordability risks to current participants. There may also be sustainability risks to sports clubs arising from this option.

42. If this option is approved in principle, staff will assess these impacts, and any implications for the delivery of participation outcomes, and will consult with stakeholders. Policy will then be developed for each of the revenue streams.

Table 3: Main advantages and disadvantages of Option 3

43. Option 3 44. Expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment	Advantages	Disadvantages
More flexibility in the use of capital and operational expenditure. Greater financial stability from a broad range of revenue streams. More total revenue for investment. Potential to equitably share costs with the beneficiaries of sports investment.	Care will be required with some revenue streams to mitigate any negative financial impacts on participants, overall participation rates and the long-term financial sustainability of sport clubs.

43. Option 3

44. Expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment

Advantages

Disadvantages

More flexibility in the use of capital and operational expenditure.

Greater financial stability from a broad range of revenue streams.

More total revenue for investment.

Potential to equitably share costs with the beneficiaries of sports investment.

Care will be required with some revenue streams to mitigate any negative financial impacts on participants, overall participation rates and the long-term financial sustainability of sport clubs.

Preliminary assessment of the proposed revenue streams

New user fees and charges

45. Council could apply a consistent approach to user fees and charges.^{^[17]} Ideally, this would be based on an assessment of public: private benefit. For example, user fees and charges could be established for all sports facilities that have the following characteristics of private goods:

· individuals who access the facilities enjoy private benefits

· access to the facilities by one or more individuals mean that other members of the public are excluded.

46. User fees and charges are applied by many other local authorities. Auckland ratepayers subsidise a much larger proportion of the expenditure for sport and recreation facilities, which are used by less than 25 per cent of the populace. Only 12 per cent of Auckland Council’s sport and recreation expenditure is funded by user fees and charges. This compares to an average of 32 per cent across all other local authorities.

47. There are a number of different approaches as to how new user fees and charges could adopted in practice, for example:

· Charges on sport facilities that are mainly used by sport participants – these might include boat ramps, sport fields and floodlights which provide private benefits to participants. A key consideration would be assessing the impact as new fees or charges could have a more pronounced impact on some population groups than others.^{^[18]}

· Charges on sport facilities that can also be used for other purposes – a different fee scheme could be applied to facilities that are used by sport participants as well as others for non-sport related purposes. For example, an increasing number of commuters are using free parking at council sport facilities.

48. Assessment of new fees and charges against the Revenue and Financing Principles highlights the need to balance the level of the new fees against possible affordability issues for participants. Future policy development would need to consider options for a differential fee structure and any likely impact on sport participation outcomes.

49. Recent pool use data showed the reduction in participation rates due to new fees was greater than the increase in participation rates when fees were removed.^{^[19]} There was a pronounced impact on low socio-economic groups, Māori and Asian people.

Rent revenue from community leases

50. Auckland Council could review rents and consider recovering the costs of administration.

51. Council has approximately 450 community lease agreements with sport organisations. Leaseholders are expected to deliver benefits that align with council’s the strategic outcomes and priorities.

52. The standard rental amount for a community lease is $1 per annum. However, the council’s administration costs for each lease are estimated to be $3,710 per annum. This cost is currently funded by rates.

53. In future the council could consider a range of factors when calculating rents, including administration costs, the underlying land value and the opportunity cost.

54. These calculations could be informed by data on the outcomes delivered through each community lease.^{^[20]} This would help to ensure that any rent increase did not come at the expense of community outcomes.

55. There is general alignment between increased rent revenue and the Revenue and Financing Principles. Any policy would need to strike a balance between cost recovery, community benefits and the financial viability of sport organisations.

New targeted rates

56. Council could also introduce targeted rates to pay for future sports facilities.

57. Auckland Council has the ability to charge a targeted rate to fund activities which mainly benefit a specific group of ratepayers and/or when the cost of the activities is imposed by a specific group of ratepayers.^{^[21]}

58. Auckland Council has recently amended the Revenue and Financing Policy through the Annual Budget 2017/2018 process to enable the use of targeted rates to fund growth infrastructure. This includes parks, sport and recreation facilities [FIN/2017/76].

59. Council would need to develop policy to determine the types of sport facilities that would be funded by targeted rates, the catchment population and the level of the targeted rates.

60. There is general alignment between new targeted rates and the Revenue and Financing Principles.

61. It may be difficult to identify the main beneficiaries of sport facilities investment, particularly when they are part of a regional network. Most people travel outside of their neighbourhoods to access sport facilities and many competitions are Auckland-wide.

62. However, the public might have a greater willingness to pay, given the benefits of sport participation and the contributions that it makes to health and wellbeing.

Revenue from commercial activities at council properties

63. Council could seek to generate revenue by increasing charging for commercial activities on council land.

64. Commercial activities such as sport tournaments, bars, restaurants and cafés are sometimes conducted from council properties by sport organisations as a way to raise additional revenue.

65. The Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 allow a percentage of commercial revenue to be charged as part of rent payment for community leases. However, it is unclear how often this clause has been exercised by local boards, or the level of revenue generated. This will be investigated as part of a review and additional charges could be considered.

66. Commercial charges could include one or a combination of the following:

· charging all leaseholders a flat percentage (for example, 5-10%) on commercial revenue, as part of the rental payment

· selling concessions or licences to leaseholders or a third party organisation to carry out commercial activities at council properties^{^[22]}

· council undertaking commercial activities at scale and reinvesting the profits in sport facilities.

67. There is general alignment between commercial charges and the Revenue and Financing Principles.

68. Further analysis is required. There would be a need to balance any profits with community benefits and the long-term financial viability of sport organisations.

69. It is not the council’s core business to run profit-generating activities. Large scale business operations are often carried out at an arm’s length by separate entities (such as Council-Controlled Organisations).

Summary Assessment of Options

70. Auckland Council is going to face significant funding challenges in the future. There is a risk that insufficient funding will be set aside for sports facilities or that investment will remain ad hoc.

71. The options presented in this report have been assessed against three criteria. These are:

· improved financial sustainability

· increased flexibility

· increased funding available for sports facilities investment.

72. The results of this assessment are presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Assessment of options

Option	Improved Sustainability	Increased Flexibility	Increased Funding	Potential Risks
Option 1 Maintain the status quo	Limited – development contributions are relatively unstable	Limited – there are legal constraints on how development contributions can be spent.	Low – one-off efficiency gains, but current investment will not be sufficient to meet growing demand. Cap on rates.	High risk of funding pressures might lead to a decreased level of provision and/or quality. High risk of reduced participation and community outcomes over time.
Option 2 Increase rates and development contribution	Limited – development contributions are relatively unstable	Limited – there are legal constraints on how development contributions can be spent.	Low– may raise more revenue, but is still likely to be insufficient to meet demand.	High risks of future funding pressures and reduced participation and community outcomes. Moderate risk of impact on housing affordability with any increase in development contributions.

Option

Improved Sustainability

Increased Flexibility

Increased Funding

Potential Risks

Option 1

Maintain the status quo

Limited – development contributions are relatively unstable

Limited – there are legal constraints on how development contributions can be spent.

Low – one-off efficiency gains, but current investment will not be sufficient to meet growing demand. Cap on rates.

High risk of funding pressures might lead to a decreased level of provision and/or quality.

High risk of reduced participation and community outcomes over time.

Option 2

Increase rates and development contribution

Limited – development contributions are relatively unstable

Limited – there are legal constraints on how development contributions can be spent.

Low– may raise more revenue, but is still likely to be insufficient to meet demand.

High risks of future funding pressures and reduced participation and community outcomes.

Moderate risk of impact on housing affordability with any increase in development contributions.

73. Option 3

Expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment

Greater sustainability – from a broad revenue base, with multiple streams.

More flexibility – having a more diverse range of revenue will increase funding flexibility.

Moderate – likely to raise revenue compared to Options 1 and 2.

Moderate risks of affordability and financial sustainability issues for participants and clubs which can be mitigated through policy development.

74. Staff recommend expanding revenue streams for sport facilities investment (Option 3).

75. Option 3 reduces risks to council and responds to future funding challenges. A more diverse range of revenue streams would provide stable, flexible and increased revenue for investment in sport facilities. Options 1 and 2 do not provide these benefits.

76. Option 3 provides increased funding which will enable the council to leverage other investment and to provide greater certainty to the sector. The costs will be shared by ratepayers, developers, participants and the sport sector. Options 1 and 2 do not significantly increase funding. The cost of providing sports facilities will continue to be borne by ratepayers and developers.

Next steps

77. If Option 3 is approved, staff will finalise the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan and include the four recommended revenue streams. Staff will do further policy work on each revenue stream.

78. Public and local board feedback will be sought during the consultation process for the Sports Facilities Investment Plan before seeking final approval from the Environment and Community Committee.

Risk identification and mitigation

79. Option 3 has potential affordability and financial risks for participants and sports clubs, which could lead to inequity across different demographic groups.

80. During the consultation process for the final Sports Facilities Investment Plan, staff will particularly focus on gathering feedback on the potential impact of Option 3 on participants, sport organisations and community.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

81. The analysis in this report drew on local board feedback on the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document. In particular, local boards:

· raised concerns about the inconsistent approach to user charges council takes across sport codes

· identified a capital funding gap for regional scale projects due to the disestablishment of the Facility Partnerships Fund

· suggested the funding problem is worsening as the other sources are either diminishing (for example, lottery money) or changing objectives

· suggested the need for reviewing lease terms and conditions, particularly the rent amount.

82. Staff will engage with local boards on the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan. Staff will use that opportunity to seek feedback on the proposed options.

Māori impact statement

83. Staff have not yet consulted with Māori representative groups on the proposed options.

84. The options will be tested with Māori representative groups as part of the consultation process on the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan, particularly regarding how additional revenue could be used to deliver Māori outcomes.

Implementation

85. If approved, the additional revenue streams will be included in the Sports Facilities Investment Plan and policy for each funding stream will be developed.

86. Final approval of any new funding streams will be sought through the following processes:

· consideration of rent revenue and commercial activities will be sought during the review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

· policy approval of new user fees and charges and targeted rates will be sought during the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 or Annual Plan processes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Assessment of options	299

Signatories

Authors

Nancy Chu - Policy Analyst

Jordan Hamilton - Finance Graduate

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

08 August 2017

Revised Smokefree Policy and Implementation Plan

File No.: CP2017/14771

Purpose

1. To present the Smokefree Policy 2017 - 2025 for adoption and provide the committee with a copy of the policy’s Implementation Plan.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council adopted the Smokefree Policy in 2013 with a commitment to work proactively with others towards making Auckland smokefree by 2025.

3. In 2016, staff undertook a review to evaluate the policy’s effectiveness. The review findings were presented to the council committee in August 2016. This report responds to the first directive from that meeting (REG 2016/65) by presenting:

· a simplified and strengthened Smokefree Policy 2017 - 2025

· a separate policy Implementation Plan.

4. The revised policy (Attachment A) is a higher-level strategic document than the 2013 policy that clarifies the council’s areas of responsibility and role within the smokefree sector.

5. The Implementation Plan (Attachment B) provides a consistent and systematic approach to how the council will enact the policy by outlining the activities the council will undertake within each of the council’s four areas of responsibility, e.g. the council as a manager of:

· assets and facilities

· public places

· large events in the city

· informing the public.

6. The Implementation Plan identifies a total of 102 activities within three timeframes:

· currently in action: 14 activities

· planned for this year: 37 activities

· in the future 2019 - 2025: 51 activities.

7. Activities listed as currently in action and planned for this year will be resourced through existing department budgets or using this year’s Annual Plan capital expenditure budget. Activities identified ‘in the future 2019 - 2025’ are subject to additional funding decisions in future annual plans and the 2018 - 2028 Long-Term Plan.

8. The Implementation Plan will be reported annually to include prioritization of activities for the coming year dependent on the resource / budget available.

9. The activities in the plan remain valid regardless of the council’s future decisions on a smokefree bylaw.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) adopt the revised Smokefree Policy 2017 - 2025.

b) endorse the Smokefree Policy 2017 - 2025 Implementation Plan.

Comments

Background – Smokefree Policy

10. In 2011 the Government committed to the aspirational goal of New Zealand becoming smokefree by 2025 (e.g. the prevalence of smoking across all populations will be less than five percent).

11. In 2013 the council adopted the Smokefree Policy. This defined the council’s commitment to work proactively with others towards making Auckland city smokefree by 2025.

12. In 2016, staff conducted a review of the Smokefree Policy 2013 in order to evaluate its effectiveness of achieving its intent. Key findings from the policy review included that:

· The policy framework and intent was sound but had not been effectively implemented due to a lack of resources.

· Auckland’s overall population is on track to meet the 2025 smokefree goal. However, particular population groups such as Māori, Pacific, and those living in The Southern Initiative region were not on track.

· Implementation of smokefree public places had been gradual and fragmented creating an inconsistency across the region.

· There was a lack of communication with relevant stakeholders and communities since the policy was first adopted, resulting in confusion:

- amongst the public about which places are smokefree

- across the sector about the council’s role and contribution to the smokefree goal

- within council in terms of responsibility for implementation of the policy.

Directions / resolutions from council committee

13. In response to the policy review findings, the council committee passed the following directives (REG 2016 / 65 / 66 and 67):

a) agree that its response to the findings of the Smokefree policy review is to progress:

i) the revision of the existing smokefree policy, strengthening our existing policy framework and intent to 2025, with a more targeted demographic approach and a greater emphasis on more effective implementation. This is to include investigation of whether council contracts, leases, licences, events and grants stipulate a smokefree requirement.

ii) the investigation of a smokefree bylaw – commence the statutory process for investigating a draft smokefree bylaw to complement the council’s Smokefree Policy.

b) agree that, as part of this work, Auckland Council will develop an action plan to target those most in need, including Māori, Pasifika and vulnerable populations.

14. This report focuses on the first of these directives broken down into two parts:

1) revise and strengthen the policy

2) greater emphasis on more effective implementation.

Revised Smokefree Policy 2017 – 2025

15. A copy of the revised Smokefree Policy 2017 - 2025 is presented in Attachment A.

What has changed - how is it different?

16. The revised policy is a higher-level strategic document than the 2013 policy as the operational components have been transferred to the policy’s implementation plan.

17. It addresses the confusion across the smokefree sector by clarifying the council’s role and contribution areas (as a member of the sector) towards achieving the 2025 smokefree goal.

18. The revised policy is strengthened to be more flexible to allow for regulatory implementation options and methods.

19. The revised policy focuses on areas where the council has the greatest influence and can work best towards achieving the desired smokefree ‘future state’. It identifies four broad areas of responsibility for the council as a manager of:

· assets and facilities

· public places

· large events held in the city

· informing the general public.

20. The 2013 policy objectives have been reworded to be more outcome focused. The policy outcomes are also linked through to the policy’s Implementation Plan. Two additional outcomes have been added to the revised policy for better clarity and coverage.

Table 1: Comparing original policy objectives with revised policy outcomes

Original policy objectives	Revised policy outcomes
Improve the health and well-being of Auckland’s communities by reducing the prevalence of smoking and de-normalising smoking behaviour	Improved health and wellbeing – Exposure to second-hand smoke is reduced for Aucklanders in public spaces
Focus on those most in need, as indicated by smoking prevalence and health statistics as outlined in the Auckland Plan	Public empowerment / cultural shift – Smokers feel supported by their community to stop smoking, particularly Māori, Pacific and vulnerable communities
Protect Auckland’s environment by decreasing risk of fire from cigarette butt litter and by reducing the amount of cigarette packet and butt litter that enters the environment	Fresh and clean environment – Public spaces are free from people smoking and are clean of cigarette litter
Give effect to the strategic commitments made in the Auckland Plan and local board plans	Increased participation and pride in place – Locals feel connect to and the recreational use of a space is increased (especially by children) through it being smokefree
Acknowledge the importance of Auckland Council’s role in advocating for wider smokefree initiatives	Increased public awareness – Awareness of and public support for smokefree increases across Auckland
	Reduced smoking behaviour in public – The visibility of smoking behaviour, particularly in the presence of children, is reduced
	Smoker management – Smokers are clear about where they can smoke and where they can’t smoke

21. The original policy principles remain largely the same as Principles to guide our work in the revised policy with minimal change in wording to provide clarity. An additional principle has been added to capture a ‘reducing inequities’ focus.

Table 2: Comparing original policy principles with revised policy principles

Original policy principles	Revised policy principles
The wellbeing of children and young people is a central consideration for the policy	The wellbeing of children and young people is a central consideration
Where possible, high-density areas and places where people congregate should be prioritised	High-density areas and places where people congregate will be given priority when considering spaces to be smokefree so it will have the greatest impact
In order for council to lead by example, areas that people directly associate with council should be prioritised	In order for the council to lead by example, areas that people directly associate with the council will be prioritised
The policy should encourage behavioural change in a manner that is acceptable to and supported by Auckland’s communities	Encouraging a change in smoking behaviour will be conducted in a manner that is acceptable to, and supported by, Auckland’s communities
The policy should be cost effective	Council will undertake activities that are proven to have the greatest impact and to be cost effective
The policy should focus on promoting a positive smokefree message, especially to children and young people	Where possible, public communications will portray positive smokefree messaging
	Reducing the inequities in our communities is a priority as are activities that contribute towards the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing of the community

The Implementation Plan

22. The Implementation Plan (Attachment B) provides a systematic approach by identifying the activities the council will take to enact the revised Smokefree Policy 2017 - 2025. It addresses many of the issues that hindered the effectiveness of the original policy as identified in the 2016 policy review.

23. The plan assures that the activities undertaken by the council will align with the policy outcomes and principles and are within the council’s role to have the most impact in contributing towards the 2025 smokefree goal.

24. The plan identifies a total of 102 activities within three timeframes:

· currently in action: 14 activities

· planned for this year: 37 activities

· in the future 2019 - 2025: 51 activities.

25. The activities listed as currently in action or planned for this year will be resourced through existing department budgets or using the $468,536 allocated as capital expenditure for smokefree signage and implementation in this year’s Annual Plan budget.

26. Those activities identified ‘in the future 2019 - 2025’ will remain subject to future decisions on resource allocation and budget including funding decisions in future annual plans and the 2018 - 2028 Long-Term Plan.

27. The Implementation Plan is a dynamic document that is able to respond to future needs and opportunities as they arise. The plan will be reported annually. This will include the prioritisation of activities for the coming year and reflect the resource / budget available.

28. The activities in the plan remain valid regardless of the council’s future decisions on a smokefree bylaw. Further activities may be added to align with any further decisions on this issue.

Plan development – consultation and the gathering of ideas

29. The Implementation Plan was developed through extensive consultation with internal and external stakeholders (see Attachment C for diagram). Types of consultation included; key informant interviews, group workshops, meetings, one-to-one discussions, and large group ‘design-led activation’ hui.

Idea assessment – generating the activities in the plan

30. All smokefree implementation ideas gathered through the internal and external consultation process were assessed against the policy outcomes and principles, as well as practical criteria of; effectiveness (whether there are global examples and / or local experiences), ease of implementation, costs and level of risk.

31. Once assessed, ideas were ranked, prioritised and refined into activities. These were then grouped into key areas of the council’s responsibility with indicative timeframes of when it would take place.

32. The Implementation Plan identifies the council’s smokefree activities within four broad areas of the council’s responsibility as a manager of:

· assets and facilities

· public places

· large events in the city

· informing the general public.

A demographic approach

33. Outcomes six and seven of the revised policy prioritises activities that target communities with the greatest need; that is, ethnic groups and communities that have the highest current rates of smoking.

34. To reflect this, activities in the plan have been prioritised in the Southern Initiative region where these demographics are the most prevalent.

The benefits of having an Implementation Plan

35. The Implementation Plan will improve the policy’s effectiveness in that it:

· focuses on areas within the council’s influence that can most affect change

· prioritises areas to reduce the inequity of smokefree public spaces

· provides a strong and logical framework for the council’s smokefree actions and associated timeframes

· highlights how much the council is contributing to the smokefree goal and demonstrates its national leadership.

Risks

36. The previous policy included a list of implementation actions within the policy document. This new approach separates these two components so that the policy is a strategic document and the Implementation Plan is operational. This enables greater flexibility for the Implementation Plan, however this still comes with some risks.

37. The table below identifies the risks with this approach and the mitigation that will be enacted to reduce those risks.

Risks	Mitigation
· Activities identified in the Implementation Plan may raise stakeholders’ expectations of what can be immediately delivered	· Activities are time-framed with a clear identification that those in the future are dependent on future resource and prioritisation
· Activities dependent on external key stakeholders for their delivery may not be achieved if the stakeholder‘s work programme or priorities are changed	· Close working relationships with external stakeholders to ensure their ongoing commitment on joint activities · Being proactive in the sector to identify opportunities where the council can use its levers to contribute and support joint activities
· Lack of public awareness of the smokefree 2025 goal and of smokefree public spaces which is essential for making Auckland smokefree	· Utilising the council’s existing communication channels to raise public awareness of the smokefree goal, smokefree places and activities · Explore future opportunities for participation in large smokefree public awareness campaigns and long-term public communications strategies
· Implementation may remain fractured and this could reduce its overall effectiveness	· Council policy staff will retain a role in monitoring the implementation of the plan · Staff will explore options for an operationally focused champion within the council to assist with coordinating plan implementation

Consideration

Local board views and implications

38. The 2013 policy gave local boards discretion for implementing the policy at a local level. Local boards are delivering on smokefree to various degrees, often depending on local priorities and the resources available.

39. Staff conducted informal engagement with local boards through the 2016 policy review process which consisted of; briefing meetings for local board advisors and elected members and presentations at three local board cluster meetings.

40. Local board members and their advisors provided preliminary feedback about the policy and its implementation at these briefing meetings. Many local boards also provided written feedback.

41. Key themes across the feedback received from local boards include:

· strong support for the policy purpose and intent

· the lack of regional resourcing for policy implementation (many noted that the costs associated with implementing the first phase of the policy put significant strain on local board budgets)

· request for a more proactive communication strategy to promote the smokefree public spaces (working directly with communities and sector stakeholders to support local initiatives)

· incorporating smokefree clauses into the council’s lease agreements and as a condition of funding for community grants.

42. Local board feedback and recommendations have been incorporated into the revised policy and the Implementation Plan.

Māori impact statement

Smoking among Māori

43. Māori currently have the highest smoking rates of any group in Auckland. Data from the 2013 New Zealand census shows the overall Māori smoking rate in Auckland is 30 per cent, compared to 13 per cent for overall Auckland population. In 2013, the smoking prevalence rate amongst Māori women was 32 per cent, compared to 28 per cent for Māori men.

44. Māori women in the 25-34 age group have the highest overall smoking rates of any group, at 38 per cent. Smoking prevalence amongst the same age group of Māori men is also high, at 35 per cent.

45. As part of the policy review, staff used current data to model declines in smoking rates for Māori and found that, if the current rate of smoking cessation continues:

· Māori smoking rates would stand at 12 per cent by 2025

· the five per cent goal would not be achieved until 2030

· The Southern Initiative region’s smoking rate amongst Māori would take until 2036 to achieve the five per cent goal.

Relevance of policy issue to Māori

46. Reducing the smoking prevalence rates amongst Māori is a shared goal amongst the council and sector partners, including Māori health groups. The Southern Initiative region has the highest population concentration of Māori in the Auckland region.

47. In March 2015, the Maunga Authority for the 14 Tupuna Maunga in Auckland passed a unanimous resolution that Tupuna Maunga be alcohol and smokefree at all times.

Engagement with Māori

48. Hāpai te Hauora Tapui Ltd (Hāpai) a West Auckland based Māori Health Advocacy Agency is the lead agency and holder of the Ministry of Health’s contract for the delivery of smoking cessation services and advocacy for Māori across New Zealand. Staff have built a successful working relationship with Hāpai to ensure Māori views are recognised in the undertaking of this work. Other opportunities available for the council to partner with Hāpai include:

· co-designing a public awareness communications strategy (appropriately targeting Māori)

· collaborating on local smokefree spaces advocacy through Hāpai’s public health leadership contract staff.

49. The council is in partnership with Healthy Families Manukau Manurewa – Papakura (HFMMP) and the Counties Manukau District Health Board (CMDHB) on a smoking cessation intervention project that focuses on Māori and is taking place in The Southern Initiative region. The intelligence collected from this project has been incorporated into the revised policy and implementation plan.

Implementation

50. The Implementation Plan commits to the delivery of specified activities in its first year. As previously identified, activities listed beyond 2018 will require future decisions on additional resources and budget to take place.

51. Funding for the activities listed in the Implementation Plan either as currently taking place or in this year (2017 - 2018) will be resourced through existing department budgets or from the $468,536 allocated as capital expenditure in this year’s Annual Plan budget.

52. Activities identified ‘in the future 2019 - 2025’ will remain subject to future decisions on resource allocation and budget including funding decisions in future annual plans and the 2018 - 2028 Long-Term Plan.

Monitoring and reporting

53. The policy’s approach and implementation activities will be monitored through a cross-sector advisory group with representation from key stakeholders both within the council and external to the council.

54. The Implementation Plan will be reviewed and reported to a committee annually which will include decisions around the activities for the coming year.

55. The outcomes and principles in the policy will be used to prioritise the activities included in future revisions of the Implementation Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Revised Smokefree Policy 2017 - 2025	315
b ⇩	Implementation Plan	325
c ⇩	Auckland Smokefree Stakeholders - visual	347

Signatories

Author

Kimberly Rees - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

[1] A vision for homelessness increasingly used in the strategies of other jurisdictions such as Vancouver

[3] Overcrowding includes those sharing temporarily in a severely crowded household.

[4] The Auckland Plan and internationally accepted definition of housing affordability is spending more than 30 per cent of gross income on housing.

[7] A vision for homelessness increasingly used in the strategies of other jurisdictions such as Vancouver

[8] Ministry of Social Development (2016), Social Housing Purchasing Strategy.

[9] https://www.lifewise.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Infographic-Housing-First-July-2017.jpg

[10] Examples of council projects that support partnerships with sector include: Community and School Partnership Project, Facility Partnerships Project, Strategic Partnerships and Auckland Sport Facilities Priorities Plan 2017-2027

[11] Auckland Council (2015) ‘Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy’

[12] M. Fleming (2016) ‘Funding Analysis Sports Facilities Network Plan – Part B’

[13] Statistics New Zealand (2015) ‘Subnational Population Projections’

[14] Auckland Council (2016) ‘Sports Facilities Investment Plan – Discussion Document’

[15] Local Government New Zealand (2015) ‘ Local Government Funding Review: 10 Point Plan – incentivising economic growth and strong local communities’

[16] The Revenue and Financing Principles were designed specifically to assist with the identification of the appropriate funding method.

[17] Local Government New Zealand (2015) ‘Local Government Funding Review’

[18] Fees and charges were applied to sports fields across six central city local boards, which raised around $188,000-$300,000 per annum. In August 2015, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to waive fees for sports fields in central local board areas until a region-wide policy is adopted. However, anecdotal evidence shows that the removal of fees in central local board areas has not been passed on to players.

[19] Environment and Community Committee, May (2017) ‘Options to address inequitable impacts of region-wide swimming pool pricing policy’ [CP2017/03108]

[20] The measurement of outcomes could be carried out by undertaking a cost benefit analysis (CBAx).

[21] Targeted rates have already been used to fund some council community facilities. For example, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards introduced a targeted rate in 2014 to fund adult entry costs at swimming pools in their local board areas.

[22] Other councils have introduced concessions for commercial activities at council properties (such as horse-riding, guided walks in regional parks).

Chairperson	Cr Penny Hulse
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Alf Filipaina
Members	IMSB Member James Brown	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Dick Quax
	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr John Watson
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Denise Lee
	Cr Mike Lee

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Environment and Community Committee Forward Work Programme	351
b ⇩	Final submission re draft Threatened Species Strategy	361
c	27 July 2017 - Pest free news update (Under Separate Cover)
d	31 July 2017 - Monthly Global Engagement Activity update (Under Separate Cover)

Author	Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer