Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 May 2020

Upper Harbour destination indoor court facility service requirements

File No.: CP2020/01895

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the community and stakeholder engagement findings.

2. To approve the destination indoor court facility service requirements.

3. To approve the location and site options in Albany for consideration in the detailed business case.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. Upper Harbour Local Board’s one local initiative (OLI) project is a sub-regional multi-use multi-sport indoor facility (destination facility) within the Upper Harbour area. The indicative business case was approved by the Environment and Community Committee in July 2019 [resolution number ENV/2019/95].

5. Consultation was undertaken with the Upper Harbour community and sport code stakeholders between December 2019 and March 2020 to inform the service requirements and ensure the indoor court facility is fit-for-purpose to meet community needs (refer to Attachment A).

6. A total of 183 responses were received to the online surveys through the ‘Have Your Say’ website and People’s Panel.

7. Further in-depth conversations were held with sport code stakeholders to understand their needs and requirements for the proposed new facility. Engagement was also undertaken with mana whenua at the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua North/West Iwi Forum. A number of iwi indicated interest in ongoing involvement in the project.

8. The key findings from this community engagement support the functions of a destination facility to provide opportunities to participate regularly in indoor sports, physical fitness and wellness activities.

9. Top responses to the online surveys included:

· indoor sports and activities – badminton, basketball, netball, volleyball and squash for adults, and basketball, badminton, volleyball and futsal for school-aged children

· physical fitness and wellness activities – Pilates/yoga, exercise machines, weight training and group fitness

· recreation programmes for school-aged children – afterschool programmes.

10. All sport stakeholders are supportive of the provision of a four-court destination indoor court facility in the Upper Harbour area and indicate that the new facility can provide for a high level of demand for their sports that is not currently met. Further validation of demand will be required through the detailed business case to understand the long-term impact of the Covid-19 situation on sport and recreation provision and activity levels.

11. The service requirements focus on a destination facility for a sub-regional catchment and are supported by the community engagement findings. The service requirements include:

· indoor sports leagues and casual play (leisure) - four indoor courts with wooden floor and 7-10m height, court dividers (dropdown/pull back), light levels suitable for recreational badminton, equipment storage, scoreboard, multiple changing rooms and some spectator seating

· sport and recreation programmes and fitness – multipurpose room with equipment storage suitable for programmes, sport club use and group fitness to cater for future growth

· accessibility – suitable changing and toilet facilities, parking.

12. The 2019 indicative business case noted the optimal location for the new facility required further investigation. Twenty-four sites were assessed for their suitability to accommodate a four-court destination indoor court facility and were short-listed to eight. Two Albany locations are recommended for further investigation through the detailed business case phase: Hooton Reserve west carpark and Albany Tennis Park, as a potential facility partnership.

13. Indicative funding of $25.6 million was earmarked for the Upper Harbour Local Board OLI in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. The detailed business case will confirm funding sources, including the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund.

14. Further investigation is required to confirm that the indicative budget is enough to deliver the service requirements. A full cost analysis will be completed as part of the detailed business case.

15. Project risks include uncertainty around cost, time and sport demand, and delivery implications of the Covid-19 situation, viability of location options, cost escalations, stakeholder and community expectations not being met, and project delays. These risks will be managed through detailed investigations early in the design process, project management and communication.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) endorse the findings of the community and stakeholder engagement process to inform the local board’s one local initiative (OLI) project, which is a sub-regional multi-use multi-sport indoor facility (destination facility) within the Upper Harbour area.

b) approve the service requirements for the proposed destination indoor court facility to serve the wider Upper Harbour area for inclusion in the detailed business case, as follows:

i) indoor sports leagues and casual-play (leisure) requiring four indoor courts, wooden floor and 7-10m height, court dividers (dropdown/pull back), light levels suitable for recreational badminton, equipment storage, scoreboard, multiple changing rooms and some spectator seating

ii) sport and recreation programmes and fitness – multipurpose room with equipment storage suitable for programmes, sport club use and group fitness to cater for future growth

iii) accessibility for full range of disabilities requiring suitable changing and toilet facilities and parking.

c) approve Albany as the location for the proposed destination indoor court facility, progressing two site options through the detailed business case:

i) Hooton Reserve west carpark, R 259 Otehā Valley Road, noting further work is required to confirm the provision of the indoor court facility is not compromised by the Gills Road link project

ii) Albany Tennis Park, 321 Otehā Valley Road, as a potential facility partnership with Tennis Northern.

d) note the indicative funding of $25.6 million was earmarked for the Upper Harbour Local Board one local initiative in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, and that the detailed business case will confirm funding sources, including the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund.

e) note that further investigation is required to confirm that the indicative budget is sufficient to deliver the service requirements, and that a full cost analysis will be completed as part of the detailed business case.

Horopaki

Context

16. The one local initiative (OLI) 10-year programme process was initiated through the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan to improve the local board advocacy process, including the provision of more comprehensive advice on local board advocacy projects. While there was no guarantee of funding, the process was designed to give priority to local board projects to be progressed through investigation, business cases and consideration for funding.

17. A sub-regional multi-use multi-sport indoor facility (destination facility) within the Upper Harbour area is the Upper Harbour Local Board’s OLI advocacy item [resolution number UHCF/2018/15]. It is also a priority action in the Community Facilities Network Action Plan to support the significant residential growth in the area.

Strategic direction supports provision of indoor courts

18. The Community Facilities Network Plan (2015) provides guidance on the provision of community facilities. The functions, provision approach and the ideal schedule of spaces for destination facilities is outlined in the table below:

Table 1: Destination leisure facility provision

Functions

Provision approach

Ideal schedule of spaces

· Indoor sports leagues

· Special leisure (rock-climbing, skating etc.)

· Possible local functions

Limited number of facilities to serve catchments 10km plus

Design determined by evidence of need and assessment of viability

Consider leisure need for:

· Multi-courts of four or more

· Multiple changing rooms

· Special leisure amenities

19. The Auckland Indoor Court Plan (2019) outlines the need for indoor court facilities in the north west of Auckland. Indoor court sports have been growing rapidly but further growth is constrained by the sports’ ability to access more time in existing facilities and lack of provision of new courts where gaps exist.

20. The need for indoor courts is also supported by the North-West Community Facility Provision Investigation Report (2018) and Needs Assessment - Multi-sport, Destination Indoor Facility for the North-West Zone (2019).

Future indoor court provision in Upper Harbour

21. The Upper Harbour Local Board approved the Third-Party Facility Sport and Recreation Service Assessment which identified the Wasp Hangar at Launch Road, Hobsonville, as a site which could deliver indoor courts [resolution number UH/2019/110].

22. The facility can provide one full-sized court and three 3/4-sized indoor courts serving a local catchment (5km radius). It provides a short-term interim solution for the provision of indoor courts for basketball and football codes before a destination facility is built to serve the wider Upper Harbour area. Funding is being sought from the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund to complement the local board’s locally driven initiative capital expenditure contribution to complete the project.

23. The Upper Harbour Local Board provided a grant to Albany Tennis Park in 2017 to investigate a sustainable and viable multi-sport business model and masterplan for the tennis park [resolution number UH/2017/65].

24. Tennis Northern confirmed their preferred option to become a multi-sport facility with the local board at a workshop in December 2019. The next steps are to undertake a feasibility study and business case and complete a site masterplan. This could include the provision of additional indoor court facilities.

Indicative business case approved by Environment and Community Committee

25. During 2019, an indicative business case was prepared using council-owned land at 161 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai, as a potential site and centre of the study area. The options considered were:

· Option one: Local two full-sized indoor court facility in the Massey/Upper Harbour part of the North-West by 2036 (status quo)

· Option two: Destination multi-sport four or more full-sized indoor court facility to serve the Whenuapai, Hobsonville and Westgate areas of the North-West (OLI)

· Option three: Local two full-sized indoor court facility situated near Whenuapai and Hobsonville in Upper Harbour from 2026 (preferred option).

26. The indicative business case found that there was a weak case for change but strong strategic alignment with council objectives and the facility would deliver community benefits over and above the capital and operating costs. The Upper Harbour Local Board did not endorse the indicative business case findings and provided extensive feedback to the Environment and Community Committee.

27. In July 2019, the Environment and Community Committee approved the development of a detailed business case commencing in 2019-2020 for a sub-regional destination multi-sport four court indoor court facility (option two). The facility will serve the wider Upper Harbour Local Board area to meet future population needs [resolution number ENV/2019/95].

28. This current analysis will inform the detailed business case and is focused on:

· defining the service requirements

· undertaking community and stakeholder engagement to ensure that the facility is fit-for-purpose to meet community needs

· identifying and confirming the optimal location to serve the catchment across the Upper Harbour Local Board area

· identifying potential partnership opportunities to develop the facility.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

29. Community and stakeholder engagement was undertaken between December 2019 and March 2020 to inform the service requirements and ensure the indoor court facility is fit-for-purpose to meet community needs.

Key findings from the community and stakeholder engagement

30. During February and March 2020, consultation was undertaken with the community through an online survey on the ‘Have Your Say’ website, People’s Panel and a hui with mana whenua. The ‘Have Your Say’ survey was available in simple and traditional Chinese and Korean languages in recognition of the high Asian population in Upper Harbour.

31. A total of 75 responses were received to the ‘Have Your Say’ online survey and 108 responses to the People’s Panel.

32. Almost half the respondents were in the 35-54 age bracket and overall, the age profile of respondents is much older than the 2018 Census data for the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The ethnicity of respondents was over-represented by Europeans and under-represented by Chinese and Asian people, as shown in the table below:

Table 2: Ethnicity of survey respondents compared to 2018 Census
Ethnicity	% Survey respondents	% 2018 Census (Upper Harbour Local Board)
NZ European + Other European	74%	55%
Māori	5%	5%
Pasifika	1%	2%
Asian	11%	39%
MELAA	3%	3%
Other	9%	1%

33. The survey findings are consistent with Sport New Zealand’s expected participation rates for the Upper Harbour area, regardless of the age and ethnicity of survey respondents. Sport New Zealand identify individual workouts, group exercise, Pilates/yoga, basketball, badminton and netball in the top 25 sport and recreation activities. The top indoor sport activity responses for school-aged children in the survey are consistent with the top four participation sports in schools in Upper Harbour.

34. The table below shows the services and activities that received the highest number of responses in the online survey questions. The majority of respondents say they want to do activities at least once or twice per week, indicating regularity of use of the new facility:

Table 3: Top responses to online survey questions
	Respondents	School-aged children
Indoor sports and activities	· Badminton · Basketball · Netball · Volleyball · Squash	· Basketball · Badminton · Futsal (indoor football) · Volleyball
Personal fitness and wellness activities	· Pilates/yoga · Exercise machines · Weight training · Group fitness	· Exercise machines · Pilates/yoga · Weight training
Recreation activities		· After-school programmes

35. There is a significant difference between the number of activities respondents say they want to do and what activities they currently do at least once per week, some of which may be addressed by the proposed provision of a new facility.

36. The main barriers for respondents doing more activities currently are:

· cost of either transport to get to facilities and/or the cost of activities

· a lack of suitable facilities

· distance and time to travel to facilities

· time

· capacity at existing facilities – shortage of court time and availability.

37. An online survey feedback was undertaken on other activities respondents would like to see at the facility. Ancillary facilities such as a café, sauna and physiotherapist were mentioned the most but are out of scope for this facility.

38. Of those currently doing indoor court sport activities, 31 per cent travel more than 10km and over 50 per cent travel between 5 and 10km. This could explain the lower level of current activity compared to what they would like to do, as time and distance are barriers to participation. This is also consistent with the findings of the Auckland Indoor Court Plan (2019).

39. Engagement was undertaken with regional sport codes covering the Upper Harbour area between December 2019 and March 2020 to understand their needs and requirements for the proposed new facility, including:

· North Harbour Basketball

· Netball Northern

· Harbour Volleyball

· Northern Football

· North Shore Table Tennis Association

· North Harbour Gymnastics

· Badminton North Harbour.

40. All sport stakeholders are supportive of the provision of a four-court indoor court facility in the Upper Harbour area. Basketball, volleyball and futsal (indoor football) indicate that there is a high level of unmet demand for their sports that can be provided for at the new facility. This is supported by the Auckland Indoor Court Plan (2019). Further validation of demand will be required through the detailed business case to understand the long-term impact of the Covid-19 situation on sport and recreation provision and activity levels.

41. The codes identified their preferences for use of the facility, as outlined in slide 12 of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshop presentation in Attachment A.

Service requirements focus on services for a sub-regional catchment

42. The service requirements for the destination indoor court facility will be used to inform the design brief and concept design for the new facility and set local board and community expectations for what will be delivered. They respond to what was heard from the community and sport stakeholders and are in line with council’s strategic direction.

43. The table below outlines the service and facility requirements:

Table 4: Service and facility requirements
Service requirement	Description	Facility requirements
Indoor sports leagues	Sports leagues for basketball, volleyball, badminton, table tennis, netball	· 4 indoor courts · Wooden floor and 7-10m height · Court dividers (dropdown/pull back) · Lighting suitable for badminton (recreational) · Equipment storage · Scoreboard · Multiple changing rooms · Some spectator seating
Casual play	Unstructured play, informal, drop-in or semi-structured
Programmes
Sport and recreation programmes for children, youth and adults	· Multipurpose room suitable for sport and recreation programmes, sports club use and group fitness activities e.g. yoga, Pilates, tai chi, Zumba · Equipment storage
Fitness		Fitness room to improve fitness, health & well-being
Accessibility	Accessible for full range of disabilities	· Suitable changing and toilet facilities, parking

44. Destination indoor court facilities often provide fitness activities like gyms for the local community. Gym facilities are not included in the service requirements for this facility as this will duplicate nearby provision. A multipurpose room could be used for group fitness activities, in addition to other recreational use, to cater for growth in the area and in response to community feedback. Pilates/yoga and group fitness were amongst the activities the community said they would most like to do and will complement gym and group fitness provision at the Albany Stadium Pool and gym-only provision at the Albany Tennis Park.

Two locations are recommended for further investigation

45. The indicative business case study area was focused on 161 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai, located in the west of the Upper Harbour Local Board area. This location did not serve a large portion of the local board area. It also had overlapping catchments with the proposed indoor court facility in Huapai, Massey Leisure Centre, and the area under investigation for indoor court provision in Henderson-Massey.

46. The indicative business case noted the location of the facility required further investigation to respond to the projected population growth and to fill the future gap in the network.

47. Work was undertaken with Panuku Development Auckland to identify a long list of sites to accommodate the needs of a destination four-court indoor court facility to serve the wider Upper Harbour Local Board area to meet future population needs. Criteria used to identify the sites were:

· location – within the Upper Harbour Local Board boundary

· site size – supports 4500m2 facility, either alone or with adjacent land

· site ownership - e.g. council owned vs crown or private ownership

· site visibility and/or adjacent to open space.

48. The long list of 24 sites was then assessed against the following criteria:

· how well the site serves the wider Upper Harbour area catchment, including ease of access (on/near/off a main transport route)

· suitable building platform of the scale required (suitable topography)

· level of incumbrance restricting development e.g. length of existing leases, existing or planned sport uses, utilities, protected areas

· site profile, e. g. good street frontage and presence.

49. Eight sites were shortlisted for further assessment. The site at 161 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai, was also included as it was the location considered in the indicative business case. The locations were assessed using a modified version of the Community Facilities Network Plan site location assessment tool and considered:

· optimising current and future catchment (10km) in Upper Harbour for a destination facility

· complementing the future North-West indoor court facility network

· deliverability, affordability and value.

50. The local board considered the sites at a workshop on 13 February 2020 and endorsed Albany as the location for the new facility.

51. The top two ranked sites (refer slides 18 and 20 in Attachment A) are:

· Hooton Reserve west carpark, R 259 Otehā Valley Road, Albany

· Albany Tennis Park, 321 Otehā Valley Road, Albany, as a potential facility partnership with Tennis Northern.

52. Both sites require further investigation through the detailed business case to identify the preferred site (refer slide 22 in Attachment A):

· Hooton Reserve is council owned and more constrained than Albany Tennis Park and has a designation for the Gills Road link project, the impact of which requires further assessment.

· Albany Tennis Park (ATP) is a potential facility partnership with Tennis Northern, who have confirmed their interest to explore a partnership. The underlying land is council owned with a community lease to ATP, with final expiry in 2048. Parts of the ATP facility are in poor condition and require investment by ATP to be fit-for-purpose. Locating the indoor court facility on ATP will impact the existing outdoor courts. The form of the partnership and viability will need to be assessed.

53. Staff members involved in the assessment represented various council teams, including Parks Sport and Recreation, Service and Asset Planning and the Auckland Design Office.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

54. Subject to funding approval, the facility design and development will include consideration of a carbon neutral building, water sensitive design, use of sustainable and ethical products, use of healthy products and ethically responsible disposal of construction waste.

55. Procurement processes for the design team will include environmentally sustainable design experience as a key requirement. In other recent procurements, this has included examples of experience designing buildings that meet Greenstar or Living Building Challenge requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

56. Parks, Sport and Recreation have been involved through the community engagement, service requirements and location assessment. Active Recreation will manage the services delivered from the new facility and Community Facilities will manage the detailed business case process, design, construction and ongoing building maintenance. Once completed, collaboration will continue to ensure that the facility will be appropriately developed and integrated into operational maintenance and asset management systems.

57. Community Facilities manages the council’s OLI programme and they will continue to maintain an overview of this project and provide regular updates to the local board and Governing Body on the programme as the project progresses.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

58. The one local initiative (OLI) as outlined within this report is the Upper Harbour Local Board’s key advocacy project identified through the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan, and the facility will deliver multiple benefits for the Upper Harbour community.

59. Development of indoor courts will address a shortfall in indoor court provision in the north-west of Auckland and meet the needs of sport codes for access to indoor court facilities to provide sport and recreation activities to the community. Validation of the needs of sport codes will need to occur during the detailed business case, given the impacts of the Covid‑19 situation on sport.

60. Over 180 responses were received to the online surveys. The community engagement findings support the functions of a destination facility to provide opportunities to participate regularly in indoor sports activities, local physical fitness and wellness activities.

61. The service requirements were presented at a workshop with the local board in March 2020 where it was acknowledged they align with community and stakeholder aspirations. The board questioned the provision of the multipurpose room for fitness activities and whether there are adequate specific fitness areas provided at Albany Stadium Pool and ATP. It is recommended that the multipurpose room is designed to be suitable for group fitness activities, as well as other recreation and club use, given the growth in the area.

62. The local board considered the location of the new facility at workshops in February and March 2020 and are supportive of:

· Albany as the location for the new facility

· further investigation of ATP and the west carpark at Hooton Reserve as potential locations for the facility, subject to confirmation that the proposed Gills Road link does not compromise the provision of the facility before extensive work on the detailed business case is carried out on the Hooton Reserve option.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

63. Sport and leisure contribute to outcomes under three directions in the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau (2017). The plan, published by the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), provides a framework to Auckland Council for implementing desired cultural, economic, environmental and social outcomes for Māori:

· Direction – Whanaungatanga: social outcome, Māori communities are connected and safe; action, wellbeing of tamariki through provision of facilities and services such as libraries, community centres, swimming pools

· Direction – Manaakitanga: social outcome, Māori enjoy a high quality of life

· Direction – Wairuatanga: social outcome, Māori social institutions and networks thrive

64. IMSB’s plan provides the following key performance indicator for sport and recreation: ‘per cent of Māori who can access at least three public council facilities, such as a library, pool or sports facility within 10-15 minutes travel time.’ Provision of the planned destination indoor court facilities in Upper Harbour will help meet this key performance indicator.

65. A presentation was made to the 4 March 2020 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua North/West Iwi Forum. Iwi who have expressed an interest in this project to date are:

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Patukirikiri

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngā Maunga Whakahii

· Ngaati Whanaunga

· Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki

· Ngāti Manuhiri.

66. Feedback from the forum is included in slide 13 in Attachment A. Five per cent of online survey respondents identified as Māori, which is the same as the Upper Harbour Local Board 2018 census data.

67. A future site visit is planned and early engagement with mana whenua should occur during the initial stages of preliminary design.

68. The destination indoor court facility will be designed in accordance with the Te Aranga design principles. This will require mana whenua input and involvement during the design process and enable Māori cultural expression within the building form and exterior.

69. There is potential for the indoor court facility to meet Māori outcomes through:

· services provided – mana whenua involvement in service requirements to ensure services that meet the needs of the Māori community

· contribution to sense of place and identity through early involvement in the design of the facility.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

70. Indicative funding of $25.6 million was earmarked for the Upper Harbour Local Board one local initiative (OLI) as part of the $200m provision in the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2018-2028 to progress the OLIs.

71. The estimated cost of the combined OLIs exceeds the $200m in the draft 10-year Budget. However, there were a number of potential other funding sources identified, including the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund.

72. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund targets investment to increase the level of community sport and recreation participation in three areas:

· enabling participation of low participant communities

· increasing participation in emerging sports with high growth potential

· sustaining or increasing participation in high participation sports.

73. To access the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund, applicants go through an initial expression of interest process before final proposals are submitted. A panel of council and sector specialists assess the proposals against a set of criteria and make funding recommendations to the council’s Governing Body.

74. The timing and funding for the delivery of the Upper Harbour destination indoor court facility will be considered in the detailed business case and is subject to approval by the Finance and Performance Committee. The detailed business case will include consideration of funding sources, including the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund, as the facility has a sub-regional catchment.

75. Further investigation is required to confirm that the indicative budget is enough to deliver the service requirements. A full analysis will be completed as part of the detailed business case. Requirements for operating expenditure will also be included in the detailed business case.

76. Subject to ongoing Covid-19 response requirements, funding is available in 2019-2020 to commence the detailed business case.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

77. The table below provides an overview of the main risks, impacts and mitigations for the project at this phase in the project:

Table 5: Project Risks
Risks identified	Impact	Mitigation
Uncertainty of impact on sport and recreation organisations and activity levels post Covid-19 situation	Demand for indoor court sport may change based on a change to population growth forecasts and how sport may function in the future	Validate demand to confirm scope and timing of delivery during detailed business case
Uncertainty regarding post-Covid-19 situation	Cost and time – there could be cost escalations due to fewer suppliers or delayed delivery timeframes; timelines could be extended to help manage immediate essential services funding requirements	Regular updates to the board through OLI programme reporting
Cost escalations as a result of budget allocation prior to developed design	Available budget is insufficient to complete project	Management through design and project delivery Appoint a QS to review costs at each stage of the design process
Further investigations determine neither site options (Hooton Reserve west carpark and Albany Tennis Park) are viable locations	Reputational risk Time – delays to the project will occur whilst other sites are assessed Cost – investment to date on site assessment will be lost and further expenditure required, possible cost escalation due to delay	Prioritise detailed investigation of site options during detailed business case
Stakeholder and community expectations not completely met	Time required to respond to stakeholder and community concerns Negative publicity may arise	Develop a communication strategy for engaging with stakeholders and the community Maintain regular communication at key points in the project
Delays to the project occur	Reputational risk Time required to respond to any concerns raised	Management through project delivery Ensure there is transparency in communication with stakeholders and the community as to why delays have occurred
As a result of undefined operational costs, the ongoing operational costs are greater than anticipated	Loss of support for the project Components of the service requirements may need to change	Ensure operational costs are fully assessed during the detailed business case phase of the project

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

78. The next steps of the project are to share the findings of the community and stakeholder engagement and how it has influenced the service requirements with the community through:

· council’s ‘Have your Say’ website

· emails with the link to the above website will be sent to stakeholders and all those who indicated that they would like to be kept informed about the project

· making the link available on the board’s Facebook page.

79. Complete procurement for a supplier to deliver the detailed business case, subject to any Covid-19 requirements, and report this to the Finance and Performance Committee.

80. Subject to the Finance and Performance Committee approving funding and timing for the project, the design team will be procured through a multi-stage process and published widely on the New Zealand Government Electronic Tenders Service (GETS). Concept design will start once the design team is contracted.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board workshop presentation - 26 March 2020	21

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nicola Terry - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Authorisers

Mark Bowater - Manager Parks

Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 May 2020

Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions

File No.: CP2020/04276

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To delegate authority to the chairperson to submit the local board’s formal views for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions to Central Government and other councils, where this feedback is due before a local board meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Central Government (and other councils) seek feedback through public consultation on bills, inquiries and other key matters. The consultation timeframes vary between four and eight weeks.

3. The Governing Body is responsible for making official submissions to Central Government on most matters, except for submissions to government on legislation where it specifically relates to a local board area. Where the Governing Body decides to make an official submission on a Central Government matter, staff work to develop a draft submission for consideration by the Governing Body and will call for local board input so it can be incorporated. The Auckland Council submission needs to be approved within the consultation timeframes set by Central Government.

4. Local board input is required to be approved by the local board. Where local boards are unable to make these decisions at a local board meeting due to the constrained timeframes, another mechanism is required. In situations where local boards prefer not to use the urgent decision process, local boards sometimes provide informal feedback that is endorsed at the next business meeting. This is not considered best practice because the local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage, which leads to reputational risk for the council.

5. In situations where timeframes do not allow reporting to formal business meetings, staff recommend that the local board either uses the urgent decision process or delegates authority to the chairperson to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions. Both options provide an efficient way to ensure that local board formal input is provided when external parties set submission deadlines that don’t allow formal input to be obtained from a local board business meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) delegate authority to the chairperson to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

b) note that the local board can continue to use its urgent decision process to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils, if the chairperson chooses not to exercise the delegation sought in recommendation a) of this report.

c) note that this delegation will only be exercised where the timeframes do not allow for local board input to be considered and approved at a local board meeting.

d) note all local input approved and submitted for inclusion in an Auckland Council submission is to be included on the next local board meeting agenda for the public record.

Horopaki

Context

6. Government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils seek feedback on issues using both formal and informal consultation opportunities. Auckland Council has an ongoing opportunity to provide advocacy on public policy matters and this is often done by making a public submission. Submissions can be provided on other council’s plans, on policy and legislative reviews or on an agency’s proposed strategy.

7. Council submissions are the formal responses to the public consultation opportunities that are open to everyone, including all Aucklanders.

8. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, the Governing Body must consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, where a Governing Body decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

9. Under the current allocation of decision-making responsibility, the Governing Body is allocated decision-making responsibility for “submissions to government on legislation including official submissions of Auckland Council incorporating local board views”. Local boards are allocated decision-making for “submissions to government on legislation where it specifically relates to that local board area only”.

10. Central Government agencies set the deadlines for submissions which are generally between four to eight weeks. These timeframes do not usually allow for formal reporting to local boards to input into the council submission. In situations where local boards prefer not to use the urgent decision process, local boards can sometimes provide informal feedback that is endorsed at the next business meeting. This is not considered best practice because the local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage, which leads to reputational risk for council.

11. Providing a delegation for Central Government submissions provides local boards with another option to give formal local views within prescribed timeframes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. There are five options available to local boards to approve their formal views and input on submissions to Central Government. Where this input is sought within a time constrained process and is due before a meeting of the local board, only four of these options will be available.

Table 1: Options for mechanisms through which the local boards can approve their formal views on Auckland Council submissions to Central Government and other councils

Options	Pros	Cons
1. Local board input approved at a business meeting	· Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision-making). · All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines often do not align with external agency deadlines.
2. Local board input approved at an extraordinary meeting of the local board	· Provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules. · Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision-making). · All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.	· Extraordinary meeting needs to be called by a resolution (requires anticipation by the local board) or requisition in writing delivered to the Chief Executive. The process usually requires a minimum of three clear working days. · There are additional costs incurred to run an unscheduled meeting. · It may be difficult to schedule a time when enough local board members can attend to achieve a quorum.
3. Local board input approved using urgent decision mechanism (staff recommend this option)	· It provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules. · Local board input can be submitted once the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and Relationship Manager have received the report providing the local board views and input. · The urgent decision needs the sign-off from two local board members (i.e. the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson), rather than just one.	· The decision is not made in a public meeting. It may be perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. · Chairperson and deputy chairperson may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board.
4. Local board input approved by the chairperson who has been delegated authority from the local board (staff recommend this option where local boards choose not to use the urgent decision process)	· It provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules and local boards do not want to use the urgent decision process. · Local board input can be submitted as soon as possible after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.	· Decision is not made in a public meeting. It may be perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. · The chair who has the delegated authority may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board.
5. Local board input submitted and ratified at a later date	· Local board informal input can be submitted as soon as possible after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.	· Local board input submitted is considered to be the informal views of the local board until they are approved. · Local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage. · Decision to ratify informal views, even if made in a public meeting, is unable to be changed in the council submission (can be perceived as non-transparent decision-making). · Inclusion of informal views in the Auckland Council submission will be at the discretion of the Governing Body. These may be included with caveats noting the views have not been ratified by the local board. · If the local board changes its views, there is a reputational risk for the council.

13. Options one, two and three are already available to local boards and can be utilised as required and appropriate. Option one should always be used where timeframes allow reporting. Option four requires a delegation in order for a local board to utilise this mechanism and should be used only when timeframes do not allow reporting to a business meeting.

14. Local boards who wish to utilise option four are requested to delegate to the chairperson as this fits within the leadership role of the chairperson and they are more likely to be available because the chairperson is a full-time role. The role of this delegated member will be to attest that the approved and submitted input constitutes the views of the local board. The input should then be published with the agenda of the next formal business meeting of the local board to provide transparency. The delegate may choose not to exercise their delegation if the matter is of a sensitive nature and is something that the full board should consider at a business meeting.

15. Each local board will be in charge of its own process for considering and developing their local board input that will be approved by the delegated member. This can include discussions at workshops, developing ideas in a small working group or allocating it to an individual member to draft.

16. Where local boards do not wish to delegate the views to the chairperson, the recommended option is to use the urgent decision mechanism (where deadlines do not align with local board reporting timeframes). The mechanism requires a staff report and the decision to be executed by three people (the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and the Relationship Manager). Local board input can be submitted within one to two days after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.

17. Option five is not considered best practice and local boards are strongly discouraged from using this.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. This report proposes a delegation to ensure that staff can undertake the preparation of submissions in a timely manner, while receiving formal local board input on matters that are of local board importance.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

20. This report seeks to establish a specific delegation for the local board chairperson.

21. Any local board member who is delegated responsibilities should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. If local boards choose to delegate to provide their formal views on Auckland Council submissions, there is a risk that this mechanism is perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. This can be mitigated by publishing the submitted local board input on the next agenda.

25. There is also a risk that the chairperson who has the delegated authority may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board. This can be mitigated by encouraging the local board to collectively discuss and agree their input before it is submitted by the member who has been delegated authority.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. On those occasions where it is required, the delegation will be used to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021	57

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 May 2020

Upper Harbour Local and Multi-board Grants round two 2019/2020 grant allocations

File No.: CP2020/04676

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with information on applications in the Upper Harbour Local and Multi-board Grants round two 2019/2020, enabling a decision to fund, part-fund or decline each application.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in the Upper Harbour Local Grants round two 2019/2020 (refer Attachment B), and Multi-board Grants round two 2019/2020 (refer Attachment C).

3. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 21 March 2019 (refer Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $162,326 for the 2019/2020 financial year, including $2443 carried forward from the 2018/2019 Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) filming revenue.

5. A total of $10,000 was allocated for a parking investigation for Hooton Reserve (resolution number UH/2019/108), leaving a total of $152,326 to be allocated to two local and three quick response grants rounds. A total of $83,917 was allocated to Local Grants and Quick Response Grants round one, and $22,840 to Quick Response Grants round two. This leaves a total of $45,569 to be allocated to one local grant and one quick response round.

6. Twenty-nine applications were received for Local Grants round two 2019/2020, including 16 multi-board applications, requesting a total of $156,304.14.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in the Upper Harbour Local Grants round two 2019/2020, listed in the following table:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2017-216	Greenhithe Community Trust	Community	Towards six months of the facilitator fees to deliver ‘HELP’ essential services	$20,160	Eligible
LG2017-201	Swimming New Zealand	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire for the 2020 New Zealand Short Course Swimming Championships from 6 October to 10 October 2020	$4000	Eligible
LG2017-204	Rosedale Park Sports Charitable Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of a defibrillator	$3915.75	Eligible
LG2017-211	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards Youthline Helpline operations cost, volunteer triage support and supervision costs in the local board area	$5000	Eligible
LG2017-215	East Coast Bays and Districts Cricket Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards an indoor cricket net hire	$3600	Eligible
LG2017-206	Auckland Paraplegic and Physically Disabled Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire and coaching costs to deliver the Strength and Conditioning Programme from June to December 2020	$4172.84	Eligible
LG2017-217	Action Education	Arts and culture	Towards ‘Spoken Word’ poetry workshops for youth, including the facilitator's costs and resources between 1 June 2020 to 30 May 2021	$3000	Eligible
LG2017-210	New Zealand Continence Association Incorporated	Community	Towards printing costs, awareness coordinator fees, and a contribution to the educator salary	$5000	Eligible
LG2017-212	Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation Charitable Trust	Community	Towards resources, transport costs and operating costs of the ’We Can Keep Safe’ pre-school programme	$2111	Eligible
LG2017-213	Presbyterian Support Northern	Community	Towards 12 months of rental costs at Family Works, Mairangi Bay	$5000	Eligible
LG2017-214	Coast Youth Community Trust Incorporated	Community	Towards the cost of the annual auditing fees	$2800	Eligible
LG2017-218	Children's Autism Foundation	Community	Towards contractor and administration costs to deliver 20 outreach sessions in homes of autistic children in the Upper Harbour area	$4513.50	Eligible
LG2017-207	Hibiscus Coast Zero Waste	Community	Towards wages and administration costs to deliver the Zero Waste Programme to 20 kindergartens in the local board area	$22,600	Eligible
Total				$85,873.09

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Upper Harbour Multi-board Local Grants round two 2019/2020, listed in the following table:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
MB1920-268	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the Youth and Community Engagement, Mātariki for Tāmaki Tour programme and creative workshops from July 2020 onwards, including artist fees, workshop fees and camera hire	$2000	Eligible
MB1920-243	Anxiety New Zealand Trust	Community	Towards venue hire, psychologist fees, printed resources and administration costs to deliver a series of community workshops from June 2020 to May 2021	$2550	Eligible
MB1920-262	North Shore Centres of Mutual Aid Incorporated	Community	Towards a proportion of operational costs, excluding wages, for eight centres in the North Shore	$5000	Eligible
MB1920-263	Parenting Place Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the delivery costs of life skills, mental health and wellbeing presentations	$5000	Eligible
MB1920-242	North Harbour Hockey Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the ‘fun sticks’ programme for five to seven-year olds, including coach and co-ordinator fees for school terms two and three 2020	$2750	Eligible
MB1920-297	PHAB Association Incorporated	Community	Towards operational costs, including youth worker wages, activity costs, administration and coordination fees from May 2020 to April 2021	$3500	Eligible
MB1920-2124	Neighbourhood Support North Shore	Community	Towards the manager’s salary and operational costs	$5000	Eligible
MB1920-223	Korean Culture Society	Arts and culture	Towards operational costs, including venue hire, advertising, facilitator, and tutor costs, to rehearse Korean cultural performances from June to December 2020	$3000	Eligible
MB1920-2122	Action Education Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the annual cost of office rent from 1 June 2020 to 31 May 2021	$1600	Eligible
MB1920-214	Asthma New Zealand Incorporated	Community	Towards costs of a portable ’FeNO’ Lung-Function machine to provide free chronic obstructive pulmonary disease tests to the community	$5000	Eligible
MB1920-235	North Harbour Community Patrol	Community	Towards the purchase of uniforms, annual car insurance, and fuel costs from 1 June 2020 to 1 June 2021	$1000	Eligible
MB1920-274	The StarJam Charitable Trust	Community	Towards salaries and levies, tutor contractor fees and venue hire	$2500	Eligible
MB1920-294	OUTLine New Zealand Incorporated	Community	Towards a portion of general operating expenses, including telephone and internet costs, printing, insurance, clinical supervision wages, training fees and volunteer costs	$2100	Eligible
MB1920-260	Environmental Education for Resource Sustainability Trust	Environment	Towards the purchase and delivery of 7953 trees and 64 plants, 635 classroom recycling bins and administration expenses for the Paper4Trees programme in schools throughout Auckland	$4831.05	Eligible
MB1920-259	The Kids for Kids Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the National Young Leaders Day and the ‘Kids for Kids’ mass choir event, including venue hire from May to November 2020	$1200	Eligible
MB1920-291	Gymnastics Community Trust trading as North Harbour Gymnastics	Sport and recreation	Towards the coaching salaries and rent from 1 June to 31 August 2020 for the Gymnastics Trust	$23,400	Eligible
Total				$70,431.05

Horopaki

Context

7. The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

8. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme.

9. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

10. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 21 March 2019 (refer Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

11. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in its local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

13. Due to the current COVID-19 crisis, staff have also assessed each application according to which alert level the proposed activity is able to proceed within. Events and activities have been assessed according to these criteria.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. The Local Board Grants Programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way.

15. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include:

· local food production and food waste reduction

· increasing access to single-occupancy transport options

· home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation

· local tree planting and streamside revegetation

· educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.

17. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

18. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Upper Harbour Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications in accordance with its priorities identified in the local board grants programme.

19. The local board is requested to note that Section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states:

We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.

20. A summary of each application received through the Upper Harbour Local Grants round two 2019/2020 (refer Attachment B), and Multi-board Grants round two 2019/2020 (refer Attachment C) is provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Māori. Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

22. Five applicants applying to the Upper Harbour Local Grants round two 2019/2020, and 10 applicants applying to Multi-board Grants round two 2019/2020 indicated that their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

24. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $159,883. A total of $2443 was reallocated to the community grants budget from the 2018/2019 ATEED filming revenue, leaving a total of $162,326 to be allocated to two local and three quick response grants rounds.

25. A total of $10,000 was allocated for a parking investigation for Hooton Reserve (resolution number UH/2019/108), leaving a total of $152,326 to be allocated to two local and three quick response grants rounds.

26. A total of $83,917 was allocated to Local Grants and Quick Response Grants round one, and $22,840 to Quick Response Grants round two. This leaves a total of $45,569 to be allocated to one local and one quick response grants round.

27. Twenty-nine applications were received for Local Grants round two 2019/2020, including 16 multi-board applications, requesting a total of $156,304.14.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocation of funding for the Local Grants round two and Multi-board Grants round two 2019/2020, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Grants Programme 2019/2020	69
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Grants round two 2019/2020 applications	73
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Multi-board round two 2019/2020 applications	129