Agenda of Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey Local Board - Notion of Motion	13

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

15 October 2020

Te Atatū Marae - land tenure

File No.: CP2020/13633

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To revise out of date resolutions in relation to the development of a marae on Te Atatū Peninsula.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. For over 30 years the Māori community in West Auckland has worked to try and establish a marae on Te Atatū Peninsula.

3. Waitākere City Council made successive resolutions supporting the development of a marae at Harbourview-Orangihina Park. A range of obstacles prevented this happening over the last few decades. This included a claim by descendants of previous owners of the land. However, this claim was resolved by the Supreme Court in 2016 and this decision was shortly followed by a decision to zone the site for Māori Purposes in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

4. In 2020, Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust advised Auckland Council that they would like to pursue a long-term lease of the park. They would also like council to acknowledge their long-term aspiration for 2.5 hectares of Harbourview-Orangihina Park to be held as a Māori reservation.

5. Parts of the resolutions passed by Waitākere City Council cannot now be implemented by Auckland Council as the circumstances have changed. It is therefore recommended that the previous resolutions of the Waitākere City Council be amended to provide for future tenure to Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust for the purpose of developing a marae.

6. If this committee supports the recommendations in this report, then staff will take a report to the Henderson-Massey Local Board setting out advise regarding options for land tenure and recommending a long term lease. This report will include procedural requirements including consultation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) agree to alter resolution 853/2005 of the Waitakere City Council by removing the following parts that refer to the establishment of a Trust:

i) the words "or until such time a Trust is established in terms of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993" in paragraph 2;

ii) Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6

b) support the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s aspiration to grant a long-term lease to Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust over approximately 2.5 hectares of land at Harbourview-Orangihina Park to enable the development of a marae, subject to the completion of any relevant statutory processes, and;

c) note that Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust would like to explore the option of creating a Māori reservation under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 in the future.

Horopaki

Context

7. For several decades there have been significant efforts made to try establish a marae on Te Atatū Peninsula.

8. In 2001 Waitākere City Council (WCC) made a resolution (number 1155/2001) that an area of 2.5 hectares be provided for a local marae on Te Atatū Peninsula and that this be explored alongside planning for the People’s Park. This planning resulted in a concept plan, referred to as the TARRA Concept Plan, that showed a marae located on the site.

9. The proposed location for the marae in 2001 remains the same today. It overlaps two parcels of land known as 375 and 415 Te Atatū Road, Te Atatū Peninsula, and is legally described as Part Lot 2 DP 370, comprised in Record of Title NA82C/159, and Section 7 SO 506986, comprised in Record of Title 791268. This land is held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

10. In 2002, WCC again resolved (resolution number 270/2002) to provide 2.5 hectares of the land at Harbourview People’s Parkland for the development of a marae (see Attachment A). It was also agreed that an advisory group be established to work with Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust (Coalition Trust) to establish appropriate legal agreements between the parties.

11. In the same year a report to council cites engagement with representatives of the following Māori entities in respect to the establishment of a marae in Te Atatū:

· Te Kawerau A Maki,

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei,

· Ngāpuhi

· Hoani Waititi,

· Te Piringatahi o Te Maungarongo Marae, and

· several prominent Māori leaders.

12. In February 2003 the Harbourview-Orangihina Open Space Management Plan was adopted and this included a concept plan that provided for a marae.

13. In 2005 WCC made another resolution (number 853/2005 – see Attachment A) to transfer 2.5 hectares of land at Harbourview to a trust structure under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. It also resolved that the Chief Executive Officer continue to work with Te Atatū Development Group (previously referred to as the advisory group), to produce an appropriate trust structure in order to facilitate the transfer of land and development of a marae.

14. In 2005 descendants of the previous owners of the land commenced proceedings to claim the land pursuant to the Public Works Act 1981. The Supreme Court decided against the plaintiffs on 11 March 2016. This delayed the development of a marae at Te Atatū for 11 years.

15. In 2016, the Auckland Unitary Plan zoned the 2.5-hectare area as Māori Purpose. This allows for the establishment of a marae (from a regulatory perspective) on Harbourview-Orangihina Park.

16. In April 2018, Council met with members of the Coalition Trust. Four tenure options were discussed in relation to the resolutions cited above:

i) title to the occupants in fee simple with revisionary interest to Council;

ii) Reserves Act classification – local purpose (marae)

iii) a long-term lease pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002;

iv) a Māori reservation pursuant to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993;

17. In 2018, the Henderson-Massey Local Board supported the Coalition Trust to seek legal advice on the four options under discussion. The outcome was that the Coalition Trust decided to apply to the Māori Land Court for a court order to establish a Māori reservation pursuant to the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

18. In 2018 Council granted $150,000 to the Coalition Trust from the contestable Cultural Initiatives Fund (CIF); of which, $50,000 was later released to cover the cost of producing a marae development plan.

19. In February 2019 the Harbourview–Orangihina Park Masterplan (masterplan) was adopted. While the proposal for a marae wasn’t specifically addressed through the development of the masterplan the area for the marae was clearly carved out and set aside in accordance with previous commitments.

20. In July 2019 the Te Atatū Marae Development Plan was completed, on behalf of the Coalition Trust, by Alan Wilcox. This articulated the vision and approach that the Coalition Trust wished to take in the establishment of the marae. It showed the intent for the facility is to serve the region for education, artistic expression, rangatahi activities, tourism and much more. It showed diverse income streams. The resources required to develop the marae to its full potential were significant.

21. In March 2020 the Henderson Massey Local Board resolved (resolution number HM/2020/37) to request that the land tenure for the marae be resolved by for the Parks, Arts Community and Events Committee (or most appropriate committee). The local board noted its ongoing endorsement over the past four electoral terms for the land at Harbourview-Orangihina Park to be used for marae purposes. The local board also acknowledged the Coalition Trust’s unwavering drive for more than three decades to secure tenure and progress the vision of development of a community marae on Te Atatū Peninsula.

22. In 2020 the Coalition Trust, after further conversation with council, decided to proceed with the third option cited above - a long-term lease, pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, while retaining the option to pursue a Māori reservation at some point in the future.

23. At this point in time council has a grant agreement with the Coalition Trust to contribute to the scope, detailed design, consent and stage one of the marae development. This funding needs to be spent during the 2020-2021 financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. In order to progress any form of marae development the resolutions passed in 2005 by WCC needs to be revisited as it was not fully implemented by WCC. Those parts that have not yet been implemented cannot now be implemented by Auckland Council in their current form as circumstances have changed since the resolutions were passed by WCC.

25. Standing Order 1.9.5 of the Governing Body Standing Orders allows the Governing Body or one of its committees to revoke or alter all or part of a resolution passed by a previous meeting. The previous resolutions of the WCC are treated as having been passed by the Auckland Council by virtue of s 35(1)(h) of the Local Government (Tāmaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. Therefore, it is open to the Governing Body or one of its committees to revoke or alter all or part of a resolution of the WCC.

26. Options to progress this matter are:

a) a long-term lease pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002;

b) a Māori reservation pursuant to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993;

c) a long-term lease with an option to pursue a Māori reservation at a future date

27. A brief assessment of the options is provided below.

A Māori reservation

28. The Māori Land Court (Te Kooti Whenua Māori) is the New Zealand court that administers Māori reservations. The Māori Land Court operates under the provisions of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. Part of Harbourview-Orangihina Park can be set aside as a Māori reservation. Council would need to first decide to apply to have the land set aside as a Māori reservation and nominate the people who will benefit from the reservation. The council would then need to apply to the Māori Land Court who will conduct a hearing about the application and recommend to the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kōkiri that the Māori reservation be established (or not). This process would involve public consultation and/or notification of the application to the Māori Land Court. An affirmative decision is given effect by the gazettal (that is, notice in the New Zealand Gazette) of the creation of a Māori Reservation. The Court is then able to issue orders appointing trustees to administer the reservation.

29. This process has several steps and would require new trustees to be identified. It would change the status of the land from park to Māori reservation and any future tenure management issues would revert to the Māori Land Court.

30. This is not an option that council has historically pursued for marae in other locations. It will take longer than a lease to establish and the complete change in status of the land is likely to attract public interest. However, it provides the marae with a high level of security and a Māori centric tenure administration.

A long term lease

31. A lease is a common mechanism used by council to enable community development and activity. The local board has the allocated decision-making responsibility for the use of and activities within local parks which includes leases.

32. Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (Guidelines) cite a maximum lease term of 20 years (two terms of ten years or four terms of five years). The performance objectives embedded in a community lease provide the opportunity to review the performance from time to time over the lease duration. The Guidelines also provide discretion to boards to vary the lease term but suggest that it should be in multiples of terms.

33. The Resource Management Act determines that where a lease exceeds a term of 35 years (including renewals) it is deemed to be a subdivision. This would require the land to be surveyed off.

A lease with an option for a Māori reservation

34. The third option anticipates a combination of the options above. A lease would be granted in the first instance which would support the first phase of development. Then, at a later point in time, as indicated by the Coalition Trust, a Māori reservation could be considered.

Option analysis

35. The identified site has not been surveyed. A lease of less than 35 years is relatively simple to execute. In relation to defining the site a description and basic site plan will suffice. A longer-term lease or a Māori reservation will require a formal survey plan.

36. The term of the lease will be up to the local board to determine once the historic WCC resolutions are amended. A lease in line with the Guidelines could be considered. A maximum lease term of 34 years, 364 days will likely be presented as an option noting:

· there have been decades of historic long term/permanent tenure commitments

· the site is zoned for this purpose

· a marae will meet Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations to enable Māori to protect taonga including cultural practices

· marae structures are intergenerational and not as vulnerable to changing trends that can affect other community uses.

37. Because the land at Harbourview-Orangihina Park is a park (as defined in section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002) the local board would need to consult on a proposal to lease the land (where the lease is for more than 6 months and has the effect of excluding or substantially interfering with the public’s access to that part of the park) before deciding to grant a lease.

38. The third option (outlined in paragraph 34), enables the marae to take time to be established in the first instance. The process of developing and building capacity will often influence the nature of the development. A lease provides for a working relationship with the local board. This relationship would enable the marae to consider any learnings and changes through the development process before deciding if a Māori reservation is appropriate to pursue.

39. It is notable that there has been express opposition in the past to the establishment of a marae at Te Atatū Peninsula. A long-term lease with public consultation will be recommended to the Henderson-Massey Local Board as it provides a balance of allowing public input, not alienating the land and giving the Coalition Trust long term security.

40. A Māori reservation will not provide as much future flexibility for the council to work with the Coalition Trust on the extent of the marae and its relationship with other park developments.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

41. Nothing in this report regarding land tenure options triggers any impact on climate change. Proximity to the coast and environmental impact of development have been discussed in the past but these are not the subject of this report and will be considered later in the process.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. In 2018, the Community Development and Safety Committee agreed to grant the Coalition Trust cultural initiatives funding to support the marae development.

43. There is a Watercare easement in the vicinity of the marae and there will be a need to work with both Auckland Transport and Watercare as development plans progress. Based on the scale of the site, the significant roading infrastructure surrounding the site and the limited nature of the Watercare easement it is assumed that access to and development of the site will not be limited by transport or utility considerations.

44. Once stage one development plans are sufficiently well-advanced, further consideration of several environmental and infrastructure effects can be undertaken in collaboration with the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45. On 15 September 2020 the Henderson-Massey Local Board received a report, very similar to this one, in order to seek their views on the way forward. The recommendations outlined in this report were unanimously supported by the local board.

46. The community views and impacts have been canvassed over the last few decades, including through the development of the management plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan. There is a large constituency of support for a marae. There is also opposition.

47. The masterplan (2019) noted the marae was outside of scope of the masterplan however the interface of the marae with the park was considered. There were submissions on the proposed marae provision through the masterplan process, but those comments were not considered through the public notification and hearings process given the marae was out of scope. However, the local community and interest groups are expecting to be consulted through the next phases of the marae development.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. The Coalition Trust is focussed on creating a visible presence in the community, connecting with the whenua and starting to build stage one of a marae at Harbourview-Orangihina Park.

49. The Coalition Trust has previously indicated it would only consider a Maori reservation, however have recently advised they would be happy with a long-term lease. They understand this would first involve entering into an agreement to lease (ideally before June 2021). Once the conditions of the agreement to lease have been met the actual lease would then become operative. A Māori reservation under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 is still an option the Coalition Trust would like to look at in the future.

50. The marae project at Te Atatū aligns with Kia Ora Te Marae, which is one of the ten priorities in Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, a council group Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework adopted by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee on 20 August 2020. This framework was developed following a review of previous plans and commitments. In included input from mana whenua and mataawaka Māori.

51. In its beginnings the earlier iterations of the Coalition Trust received support from mana whenua for the establishment of a marae at Te Atatū. This is now out of date and the Coalition Trust are re-engaging with mana whenua and will invite them to reconfirm their support for the project.

52. The establishment of a marae in Te Atatū is intended to meet the needs of Māori in particular, and the local community in general.

53. The demographic trajectory in the subject area will see growth in both the Māori population and population in general. The establishment of a marae in Te Atatū will help meet growing community needs.

54. The 2018 census shows that, at present, 17.2% of the Henderson-Massey Local Board area identify as Māori (compared to Auckland, 11.5%). Usually 20,319 Māori live in Henderson-Massey. This is an increase of 4,311, or 26.9%, since the 2013 Census.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. The Coalition Trust are aware that the full vision is a large investment that will take many years of capacity building to achieve. A shorter-term development plan/staged approach is being developed that is intended to be more financially affordable.

56. The cost of development will lie with the Coalition Trust although they would look to a range of funding partners to achieve the short- and long-term vision. This may include council’s existing grant funding sources.

57. The next steps outlined within this report will be supported by council staff at no extra cost to council (other than existing staff and grant commitments).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. The long-held aspiration of the Coalition Trust is in line with the principles and intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Council mitigates the risk of breaching obligations by working in partnership and in good faith with the Coalition Trust.

59. This risk and associated mitigation are mana (prestige) enhancing for all involved. An appropriately planned and developed marae in Te Atatū acknowledges council’s express support of protecting Māori taonga and supporting Māori community wellbeing.

60. Regulatory services provide management services to support marae development in line with the organisation support for Kia ora te marae. This ensures the consent process includes an understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and can effectively support Māori outcomes.

61. The long-term aspirations of the Coalition Trust are expensive, however the risk of not achieving this is mitigated by a staged development approach and which will enable progressive capacity building within the marae.

62. Historic community opposition includes concern about displacement of other activities and impact on the environment. The displacement has been addressed through the many planning processes that have determined the appropriate long-term use of the site. The impact on the environment will need to be addressed through development planning and is further mitigated through the Coalition Trust intent to be kaitiaki (guardians) for te taiao (the environment).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63. If this committee supports the recommendations in this report, then staff will take a report to the local board setting out advice regarding options for a lease and any procedural requirements including consultation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2002 and 2005 resolutions from Waitākere City Council	25

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jane Aickin - Maori Outcomes Lead | Nga Matarae – Customer and Community Services

Authorisers

Tania Winslade - General Manager, Nga Matarae | Maori Outcomes

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

15 October 2020

Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan progress report

File No.: CP2020/01728

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To report progress on implementation of the Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan (2019).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Delivery of the Community Facilities Network Plan (CFNP) Action Plan ensures a focus on investment priorities and improved planning for provision of community facilities in a constrained resource environment.

3. The CFNP and its companion Action Plan guide how Auckland Council plans and prioritises community facility provision and the services and locations council invests in.

4. The CFNP, approved by the Governing Body in August 2015, provides a road map for council’s investment in the provision of community facilities over the next 20 years. It contains criteria for identifying and prioritising actions to deliver on the strategic direction it provides.

5. These actions are reflected in the CFNP’s companion Action Plan, which outlines the projects that will be delivered to give effect to the CFNP direction.

6. Every three years the CFNP Action Plan is reviewed and updated to recognise progress of existing actions and assess potential new actions. In April 2019 the Governing Body approved the revised Action Plan for the CFNP (ENV/2019/47).

7. To date we have completed or are working on:

· 69 per cent of area-based (service and location) actions

· 80 per cent of business improvements

· 78 per cent of strategic improvements.

8. Area-based actions are prioritised with a primary focus on ensuring existing assets are fit for service, with the secondary focus being growth and potential gaps in council’s community facility network.

9. The progress being made on priority area-based actions demonstrates our commitment to focusing resources on a collectively agreed and mandated programme of work.

10. The economic slow-down caused by Covid-19 has slowed our pace of progress and will continue to impact the pace of delivery.

11. Our progress on actions to date has confirmed five actions that require investment decisions.

12. The investigation of actions help to balance investment needs by identifying ways of delivering services that reduces reliance on capital investment.

13. We aim to align implementation of actions with development opportunities to decrease impact on rates, for example Panuku Development Auckland’s programme of transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

14. Meanwhile, our work on business and strategic improvement actions are helping us to enhance the tools and practices we use to achieve the outcomes of CFNP.

15. The next progress report on the implementation of the Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan is due to be reported to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee (PACE) in 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) receive the Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan (2019) progress report.

Horopaki

Context

A strategic approach to investment in community facilities is needed

16. Council has a network of over 350 community facilities including community centres, venues for hire, galleries and theatres, libraries, swimming pools and leisure centres. This represents a significant ratepayer investment.

17. The community facility network is variable in distribution and quality due to historic development patterns and investment approaches. A strategic approach to investment in community facilities and services by Auckland Council is required because of the challenges of maintaining levels of service across the existing network within existing funding envelopes while:

· controlling costs

· maximising value

· and balancing the demands of growth and changing customer behaviour.

We have a blueprint for our investment in community facilities

18. The Community Facilities Network Plan (CFNP), adopted in 2015, guides council’s investment in the provision of community facilities for the next 20 years. It provides direction on the development of new facilities, major upgrades of existing facilities, optimisation and potential divestment of facilities no longer meeting community needs.

19. The scope of the CFNP includes five types of community facilities:

· arts and culture facilities

· community centres

· libraries

· pools and leisure facilities

· venues for hire (community or rural halls).

A mandated set of actions helps to achieve the aim of the Community Facilities Network Plan

20. The CFNP’s companion Action Plan outlines and prioritises the projects that will be undertaken to give effect to the network plan, reflected through three categories:

Category	Theme	Explanation
1. Area-based actions	What community facilities council invests in	These relate to specific service types and locations and have been assessed as priority or non-priority based on assessment against criteria in section 5.2. of the CFNP. These actions help us understand service investment requirements across the Auckland community facilities network.
2. Strategic improvement actions	Approach to community facility provision	Planning and operational changes that will improve the way we work to achieve the approach outlined in section 3.3 of the CFNP network plan: Integrate and coordinate planning across all types of community facilities.
3. Business improvement actions	Approach to community facility provision	Actions to improve our understanding of community facilities, to develop tools to complement the implementation of the CFNP or to improve the operation of community facilities.

21. Area-based actions are triggered by one or more of four drivers:

i. Existing facility has significant fit for purpose or performance issues and/or evidence of demand for additional provision

ii. An area with a gap or duplication of provision (as determined by the provision approach in the CFNP)

iii. An area with anticipated need arising from population growth (as determined by the approach to identifying gaps in the CFNP)

iv. An external catalyst or opportunity.

22. Once identified, actions are prioritised according to criteria detailed in section 5.2 of the CFNP, as detailed in the following table.

Category	Sub-category	Weighting
Network 40%	Network contribution	10%
	Demand	10%
	Catchment size	10%
	Optimisation or divestment potential	10%
Community 40%	Local board priority	15%
	Impact in the community	10%
	Alternative provision	5%
	Catalyst/opportunity	10%
Building 20%	Size and layout	10%
Building 20%	Physical condition	10%

23. Every three years the CFNP Action Plan is reviewed and updated to recognise progress and review priorities of existing actions and assess potential new actions. In April 2019 the Environment and Community Committee approved the revised Action Plan for the CFNP (ENV/2019/47). The revised Action Plan was the first review since adoption of the CFNP.

Customer and community first

24. Investigation of CFNP actions follow a consistent approach with a primary focus on identifying and understanding customer reach and impact, alongside consideration of network provision, growth and demographics. This ensures that any investment in facilities delivers effectively on the service requirements of communities.

25. The CFNP and Action Plan support council’s goal to understand the options available to deliver a service, alongside focusing future investment on:

· quality over quantity

· addressing service gaps where growth is significant

· and improving portfolio performance.

Alignment of Action Plan implementation with investment cycles

26. Actions are progressed to align with investment planning cycles. Current investigations will inform investment requirements and prioritisation across the network for the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Delivery of priority area-based actions is progressing well demonstrating our resources are focused on a mandated work programme

27. A total of 69 per cent of area-based actions (priority and non-priority actions combined) are now complete or in progress.

28. The following table shows the per cent breakdown of progress across priority and non-priority actions.

Area-based action type	Per cent complete or in-progress
Priority	79
Non-priority	54

29. The significant progress being made on priority area-based actions demonstrates our commitment to focusing resources on a collectively agreed and mandated programme of work.

30. In addition, we prioritise delivery of actions to ensure focus across the network (refer Attachment A for further detail):

Network focus	What it tells us	Refer slide number in Attachment A
Geographic distribution of actions	we have completed or are working on actions across all local board areas.	6
Distribution of actions by service area	the benefits of Action Plan delivery are being realised across all service areas in the scope of the network plan	7
Commitment to existing assets and growth	recognising council’s commitment to ensuring existing assets are fit-for-service, this is the highest category across all drivers for actions identified, growth and potential gaps in and the network are the second highest categories	8
Category of action (e.g. needs assessment, business case, delivery)	the bulk of area-based actions are investigations involving strategic and/or needs assessments, this reflects determining customer need as a first step, rather than an assumption that facility provision is required	9

31. The status of individual actions in the CFNP Action Plan are detailed in Attachment B. The red text in the attachment indicates a change of status since the revised Action Plan was approved in April 2019.

Understanding community needs can identify ways of delivering services that reduce reliance on capital investment

32. Understanding the service needs of customers and communities is the primary focus of investigations for area-based actions. The investigation process considers options to respond to identified needs and if required, establish clear and robust evidence to support advice regarding appropriate responses and nature of investment required.

33. Investigations can recommend ways to deliver services without the need for significant investment in some parts of our community facilities network. For example, action 110 completed in May 2019 resulted in the establishment of an independent ‘creative spaces coordinator’ to broker the use of vacant space and assist with capacity building rather than adding an asset to the community service portfolio.

Aligning Action Plan implementation with development opportunities can help to reduce impact on rates

34. Implementation timing of priority area-based actions is aligned with opportunities such as development or regeneration (for example Panuku Development Auckland’s programme of major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods) to reduce impact on general rates by leveraging investment in other activity to maximise benefit to communities.

35. An example of this was the investigation of library service provision focused on existing assets in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area (Action 71), completed in 2019, delivered in line with regeneration programmes in Glen Innes and Panmure.

36. The investigation considered asset condition and ways to ensure delivery of cost-effective community infrastructure that is appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances. Staff are working with Panuku to explore options including using optimisation as a primary funding source for redevelopment of Panmure Library and Panmure Community Hall.

37. Staff are also working with the Tāmaki Regeneration Company to understand potential partnering for capital investment in the Glen Innes town centre.

In a constrained environment our progress on actions is helping us understand where to concentrate our effort

38. The impact of Covid-19 and the resulting economic slow-down has had a significant impact on the council’s revenue and borrowing capacity. The Emergency Budget 2020-2021 has highlighted the need to reduce capital expenditure across the council family and reprioritisation of projects.

39. The focus of our work continues to be guided by the priorities in the CFNP Action Plan in this constrained environment. Our pace of progress has slowed for two reasons:

· we have less delivery resource

· we have delayed work that requires significant capital investment

40. For example, work on actions related to the One Local Initiative (OLI) investment programme including the development of a library and multi-use community facility in Flat Bush have been put on hold. Other work such as developing a case for new investment in aquatic and recreation services in Kaipātiki has been paused.

41. Actions that are paused (5.7 per cent) are reflected as ‘pending’ in the graphs in Attachment A and noted in red text in Attachment B.

There are five actions that need investment questions to be answered

42. Our work has confirmed five actions that require investment consideration for the community portfolio through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, as outlined in the following table.

Action number

Description

Drivers

Investigate provision of library facilities in this area giving consideration to tenure and suitability.

Albany Village Library

· Lease expiry 2023

· Current under-provision (based on CFNP guidelines) and high growth expectations

107

Investigate provision of library facilities in this area giving consideration to facility condition and suitability.

Leys Institute Library

· Library no longer fit-for-purpose

· Seismic remediation needed before building can be reopened

· Moderate levels of growth

108

Investigation of whole of life asset maintenance and renewal requirements. Assessment of potential for expansion or redevelopment to meet future needs.

Central City Library

· Building condition issues requiring significant investment and impacting on services provision

· Significant population growth in the city centre and Auckland as a whole

· Changing nature of libraries to meet customer expectations

128

Develop an indicative business case for investment in aquatic provision.

Mount Albert Aquatic Centre

· The centre is not considered fit-for-purpose to cater for current and future demand

· The Framework Agreement 2015 sets out the expectation for investigation into alternative site for aquatic provision or improvements to current site’s access/parking

129

Develop an indicative business case for investment in aquatic provision.

North-west aquatic provision

· Current and growing unmet demand for aquatic services

· Projected fast population growth driving demand

Strategic and business improvements advance how we carry out our work and the processes we use

Business improvements

43. Business improvement actions enhance our portfolio information and tools to implement the outcomes of the CFNP. Approximately 80 per cent of business improvement actions in the CFNP Action Plan are complete or in progress.

44. An example of a business improvement initiative (Action 121) that has been completed is an internal GIS portal that provides access to comprehensive data to inform advice to support investment recommendations.

Strategic improvements

45. Strategic improvements enable better ways of working to achieve the goals of the network plan. About 78 per cent of strategic improvements in the CFNP Action Plan have been completed or are in progress.

46. The Facility Partnerships service developed from a strategic improvement (Action 4). It was established to support implementation of the Facility Partnerships Policy 2018. The policy provides a framework for council investment in community facilities owned or operated by others to enable faster and more cost-effective access to services than either party can achieve alone.

47. The service provides a standardised process that is:

· focused on community need and evaluating if partnership is the best option (over different options such as a lease or grant)

· a better experience for potential partners through a transparent service model, which outlines how and when decisions are made

· better value to Aucklanders as decisions and trade-offs can be made collectively, prioritising scarce resources.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48. There are currently no identified climate implications for the delivery of the CFNP Action Plan investigations.

49. Consideration of climate impacts happens at a project level during the development of detailed business cases. These business cases cover climate impacts such as an allowance for environmental initiatives in early cost estimates and sustainability advisors on procurement evaluation panels.

50. We will improve the approach to assessment of climate impacts in investigations and business cases by applying learnings (from across the organisation) as it matures in its responsiveness to climate change. Staff will also seek to understand the allowances that need to be made to meet climate impact targets for Action Plan projects related to the development of new, or improvement of existing, facilities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51. Delivery of the CFNP Action Plan is resourced by council’s Community and Social Policy and Service Strategy and Integration teams, subject to capacity. Individual actions are delivered with participation from other departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

52. In-progress area-based actions are reflected in relevant local board work programmes. Local boards provide feedback and input throughout the investigations and have decision making responsibilities.

53. Decision-making for service provision and location sits with local boards within funding parameters set by the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Section 2.2 of the CFNP outlines how the CFNP will deliver on Māori outcomes. These include:

· engage with Māori organisations to understand Māori expectations and investigate the community needs of Māori groups, and factor this into decision-making for community facilities

· actively engage and consult to ensure the planning, development, and operations of facilities consider Māori needs and aspirations

· work closely with Māori groups and key stakeholders, including local iwi, to develop appropriate cultural programmes to be delivered through facilities

· investigate Māori demographic participation and usage trends, identifying opportunities to increase the attendance and use of facilities by Māori and developing appropriate business responses

· provide visual representations of commitment to Māori to tell stories of their connections to the place (such as signage) and honouring tikanga

· ensure that, in any exploration of potential future sites for facilities, Māori concerns about wāhi tapu are incorporated.

55. Engagement with Māori is included as part of investigations and continues through the planning and delivery of responses. Examples include:

· interviews and hui with mana whenua

· interviews and hui with mataawaka in local settings to understand community needs

· workshops and focus groups with local marae

· intercept surveys with representative samples of the Māori population base

· kanohi ki te kanohi interviews conducted in Te Reo Māori.

56. Feedback provided from Māori is specific to the nature of the investigation for which the engagement occurred. This feedback is used to inform the delivery of options and responses.

57. Staff will work with other relevant parts of the council to ensure effective engagement with Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

58. There are currently no identified financial implications for the delivery of the Action Plan area-based actions, as work is delivered utilising existing resources and budgets.

59. However, our work has confirmed five actions that require investment consideration through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Risk	Mitigation
Strategic · implementation of the Action Plan involves understanding service needs and taking a network view, which may not match local board priorities · the aim of the CFNP is to create efficiencies and improve service delivery to residents, but it may also require the divestment of poor performing or not-fit-for service spaces in favour of longer term planning for better integrated or co-located spaces	· continue to socialise and reinforce the strategic objectives of the CFNP to elected members, key staff and through all deliverables · strengthen the evidence base for the CFNP approach based on the Better Business Case model
Financial · budget allocated in the LTP 2018-2028 may be insufficient to deliver some of the action findings. In many instances, there is no capital or operational budget allocated in the LTP to deliver on any new provision requirements arising from actions · the need for significant new investment identified from actions will be challenging because Covid-19 has had a significant impact on the council’s revenue and borrowing capacity · some investigations may require changes to current funding identified in the LTP 2018-2028	· ensure findings of investigations that require new investment are supported by indicative business cases and are considered as part of a LTP process · manage expectations by acknowledging the delegation for decision-making on investment in new facilities is held by the Governing Body and is considered as part of long-term planning (decision making for service provision and location sits with local boards within parameters set by the Governing Body)
Timing · delivery of some actions may exceed timeframes for consideration in the LTP 2021-2031 process · Delivery of actions may take longer because of reduced operational capacity · timing for some actions (particularly non-priority actions) may not align with elected members and/or local communities’ expectations	· drive delivery to meet required timeframes for priority actions requiring funding consideration · manage expectations based on the principles and direction set by the adopted CFNP

Risk

Mitigation

Strategic

· implementation of the Action Plan involves understanding service needs and taking a network view, which may not match local board priorities

· the aim of the CFNP is to create efficiencies and improve service delivery to residents, but it may also require the divestment of poor performing or not-fit-for service spaces in favour of longer term planning for better integrated or co-located spaces

· continue to socialise and reinforce the strategic objectives of the CFNP to elected members, key staff and through all deliverables

· strengthen the evidence base for the CFNP approach based on the Better Business Case model

Financial

· budget allocated in the LTP 2018-2028 may be insufficient to deliver some of the action findings. In many instances, there is no capital or operational budget allocated in the LTP to deliver on any new provision requirements arising from actions

· the need for significant new investment identified from actions will be challenging because Covid-19 has had a significant impact on the council’s revenue and borrowing capacity

· some investigations may require changes to current funding identified in the LTP 2018-2028

· ensure findings of investigations that require new investment are supported by indicative business cases and are considered as part of a LTP process

· manage expectations by acknowledging the delegation for decision-making on investment in new facilities is held by the Governing Body and is considered as part of long-term planning (decision making for service provision and location sits with local boards within parameters set by the Governing Body)

Timing

· delivery of some actions may exceed timeframes for consideration in the LTP 2021-2031 process

· Delivery of actions may take longer because of reduced operational capacity

· timing for some actions (particularly non-priority actions) may not align with elected members and/or local communities’ expectations

· drive delivery to meet required timeframes for priority actions requiring funding consideration

· manage expectations based on the principles and direction set by the adopted CFNP

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

60. Highest priority actions, such as those with funding requirements and/or in spatial priority areas will be targeted for completion in time for consideration as part of the LTP 2021-2031.

61. Area-based actions that have not yet started will be reflected in future work programmes subject to available resources.

62. The next progress report on implementation of the Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan (2019) is due to be reported to PACE in 2021.

63. Actions that have arisen since the adoption of the 2019 CFNP Action Plan will be recommended for inclusion in the next revision of the plan which is due in 2022. These include actions to progress findings from completed investigations, as well as those that meet the criteria for inclusion in the Action Plan coming through the LTP 2021-2031, local board direction-setting and input from across the organisation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan progress update summary	37
b ⇩	Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan (2019)	51

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tracey Williams - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Authorisers

Justine Haves - General Manager Service Strategy and Integration

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

15 October 2020

Removal of an encumbrance next to Duder Regional Park

File No.: CP2020/14302

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to remove a legal encumbrance over lots 202-208 Maraetai Coast Road, Clevedon, adjoining Duder Regional Park.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A legal encumbrance gives the council the right of first refusal to acquire land at 202-208 Maraetai Coast Road, Clevedon. The land adjoins Duder Regional Park.

3. The current owners of these four properties have asked that the encumbrance be removed to allow them to simplify their estate planning.

4. To enable decision-making, staff have assessed the open space value of these properties against council policy.

5. Staff recommend that the encumbrance be removed. Acquisition of the four properties was not assessed as a priority for council.

6. The land is no longer needed to improve access the Duder Regional Park. Public access was significantly improved with the purchase of land on North Road.

7. The land at 202-208 Maraetai Coast Road is also located in a coastal inundation zone.

8. Removal of the encumbrance does not create a delivery or financial risk to council. It would not preclude the council from purchasing the land in the future should it wish to do so.

9. If approved, staff will remove the encumbrance from the records of title at Land Information New Zealand.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) approve the removal of the legal encumbrance (B064731.7) from the records of title at Land Information New Zealand over lots 202-208 Maraetai Coast Road, Clevedon, which gives council the right of first refusal to acquire these properties.

Horopaki

Context

10. In 1982, an encumbrance (B064731.7) was placed upon the titles of 202, 204, 206, and 208 Maraetai Coast Road, Clevedon, by the Manukau City Council. It was part of a long-term strategy to establish a regional park in this location.

11. The encumbrance gave the council the right of first refusal to acquire the four properties if the current owners ceased to occupy them.

12. The eastern boundary of these properties adjoins what is now Duder Regional Park. This park was created in 1995 with land purchased from the Duder family.

13. Since that time, the council has acquired several additional land blocks to improve the functionality and accessibility the regional park. The most recent acquisition was in 2014.

14. The figure below shows the location of the four properties subject to the encumberance.

Figure 1: Location of the land subject to the encumbrance (red) in relation to council-owned open space (purple)

15. The figure below shows access to Duder Regional Park (indicated by the blue lines).

16. The northern access is used for operational purposes and adjoins the four properties subject to the encumberance (red) on their western boundary.

17. The southern access on North Road is the formal visitor entrance to the regional park.

Figure 2: Access to Duder Regional Park (blue)

18. On 15 March 2020, the landowners requested that the council remove the encumbrance on 202-208 Maraetai Coast Road due to it complicating the family’s estate planning.

19. Staff have confirmed that, as of 12 August 2020, the properties at 202-208 Maraetai Coast Road are not currently for sale, and that the right of first refusal has not been triggered.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Removal of the encumbrance was assessed against council policy

20. To determine whether the encumbrance is still required, staff assessed the open space value of the land against the council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013) and the Open Space Provision Policy (2016).

21. Proposed acquisitions are prioritised according to the highest rating achieved.

22. The acquisition assessment for the four properties is summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Assessment summary for lots 202-208 Maraetai Coast

Acquisition Criteria	Comment	Overall Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	Not a priority as: · the land is not required to meet the open space provision targets in the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 as there is no provision target for destination parks.	û *Not a priority*
Connecting parks and open spaces	Not a priority as: · the land does not connect existing parks or open spaces to each other and could not do so in the future due to its location.
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings	Not a priority as: · only Lot 4 contains an area of Historic Heritage (the Duder Homestead). The historic heritage area would make a low contribution to enhancing existing open space in the locality.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have	Not a priority as: · the land is not needed to improve the accessibility and functionality of existing open space in the locality as there are two existing vehicle access points.

Acquisition of the four properties was not considered a priority for council

23. Staff recommend that the encumbrance be removed from 202-208 Maraetai Coast Road.

24. Acquisition of the four properties was not assessed as a priority for council.

25. The land is no longer needed to improve access the Duder Regional Park. Public access was significantly improved with the purchase of land on North Road.

26. The four properties are also located in a coastal inundation zone.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The removal of the encumbrance will have no climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. The removal of the encumbrance will have no impact on council groups.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. The removal of the encumbrance will have no impact on the local community. Formal visitor entrance to Duder Regional Park is from North Road.

30. Local board views have not been sought for this assessment. Decision-making for regional parks is allocated to the governing body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. The land in question does not contain any known sites or places of significance to mana whenua. However, the wider Umupuia area, including Duder Regional Park, contains a number of sites of significance from early Māori settlement.

32. Mana whenua have not been engaged in relation to the removal of the encumbrance.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. There are no financial implications arising from the proposed removal of the encumbrance.

34. Council charges $600 to discharge the encumbrance from the record of title at Land Information New Zealand. These costs are recovered from the landowner or applicant.

35. Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. Removal of the encumbrance does not create a delivery or financial risk to council. It would not preclude the council from purchasing the land in the future should it wish to do so.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. If approved, staff will remove the encumbrance from the records of title at Land Information New Zealand.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Caroline Stephens - Graduate Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

15 October 2020

2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme

File No.: CP2020/14885

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme from the PACE (Parks, Arts, Community and Events) Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme is a continuation of the 2019/2020 Public Art Regional Work Programme previously approved by the Environment and Community Committee (ECC) in 2019 (Resolution ENV/2019/135).

3. Staff are seeking approval of the 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme from the PACE (Parks, Arts, Community and Events) Committee.

4. Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget was adopted on 30 July 2020; the impact to public art was a 69 per cent reduction to the Public Art Regional CAPEX budget from $3,28 million to $1 million in 2020/2021.

5. Responding to this budget restriction, contractually committed projects have been continued where possible. Priority has been given to projects associated with a parent project, which currently encompasses two major projects - Myers Park and Federal Street. Jubilee Bridge is also considered a parent project consideration but is a lesser priority due to a longer timeline for completion.

6. Priority has also been given to projects that are on track to be completed in 2020/2021.

7. No new CAPEX projects will be onboarded to the 2020/2021 work programme, instead scoping will continue to take place with the intent of incorporating into future programmes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee;

a) approve the 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme (Attachment A to the agenda report).

b) approve delegation of authority to the Manager, Arts and Culture to approve changes to individual items on the work programme throughout the year, provided such changes do not significantly affect the intent of the programme, noting that any significant changes will be presented to the committee for consideration.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Auckland Council Public Art policy supports the goals of Toi Whītiki, which emphasises the role of public art in placemaking. Among the strategic goals of Toi Whītiki is that, “all Aucklanders can access and participate in arts and culture”, which means that the Public Art Work programme is considered regionally.

9. On 13 August 2019, the Environment & Community Committee (ECC) approved the 2019/2020 Arts and Culture Regional Work Programme (Resolution ENV/2019/135). The Regional Public Art Work programme was a component of this.

10. With the new political term, new committees were established in late 2019, including the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, which is a committee of the whole.

11. Council’s finance staff advised that the 2020/2021 Public Art Work Programme be presented to the PACE Committee for approval, as public art falls within the committee’s remit of strategic and political decisions with regards to social, community and cultural activities in Auckland.

12. Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget was adopted on 30 July 2020. As the 2019/2020 Public Art Regional Work Programme was previously approved by the Environment and Community Committee, work is continuing against all projects in financial year 2020/2021 with consideration of the financial implications of the budget. This was approved by council’s finance team and the General Manager of Arts Community and Events.

13. The Auckland Public Art / He Kohinga Toi website which was part of the 2019 /2020 public art work programme went live on 10 October, as part of the Artweek Auckland 2020 Programme. The website showcases some of Auckland Council’s collection of public artworks, celebrating the creativity of Tāmaki Makaurau and reflecting the unique identity of our city.

14. Visitors to the website can discover the ideas and inspiration behind some of the public artworks across Tāmaki Makaurau, as well as search by location, artist name or artwork type to learn more about the newest additions to the city’s public art collection. The implementation of the Public Art website is included in the 2020/2021 work programme.

15. There are three additional workstreams in the 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme:

· Monuments workstream: Waitematā Local Board has resolved (WTM/2020/127) to “request the Public Arts Team and Heritage Unit to investigate existing monuments located in the Waitematā Local Board area that commemorate historic events or figures such as Governor Grey and consult with mana whenua before providing advice on the appropriateness of re-siting or moving the works. The teams are also requested to investigate options for additional or alternative signage to provide context and interpretation of the works.” $26,000 has been allocated to this work from the Waitematā Local Board’s LDI budget.

· Māori Public Art Plan: Development of an Auckland-wide Te Ao Māori public art plan, to act as a ‘blueprint’ for public art in partnership with Mana Whenua. $10,000 OPEX budget has been allocated to commence development this financial year.

· Watercare Interceptor artworks: Development of a series of six integrated artworks by senior New Zealand artist Chris Booth in sites across the route of Watercare’s Central Interceptor. This is a 14.5 km tunnel running from Grey Lynn to Watercare Services Limited’s Mangere treatment plant. Scoping is underway for consideration of inclusion in future Public Art Work programmes; no Public Art CAPEX budget has been allocated to this project for 2020/2021. The project is the second largest infrastructure project currently in progress in Tāmaki Makaurau, second only in size and value to the City Rail Link.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. The 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme (Attachment A) is comprised of the following categories:

Table one: Public Art Work programme categories

Category	Description
“Hero” projects	Defined as unique, distinctive pieces of public art in terms of either form, scale, or innovation. They will become a destination or cultural icon in their own right.
Integrated artwork	Artistic features and designs that are integrated into a building or built space, such as walls, floors, or ceilings. These have the potential to span both the interior and exterior spaces of a built structure and can be incorporated into structural or functional components.
Cultural and community	Artworks which are reflective of a traditional cultural practice - usually mark possession, position, a route, boundary, or places of significance, or mark a community or a community identity, shared value or attitude.
Digital	Public artworks that encompass a digital element or is experienced through a digital-virtual platform or sphere. Platforms can be physical (e.g. smartphone, laptop) or digital (e.g. social networking site, video streaming site or online file sharing services).
Co-developed	Comprising public art gift offers and registration, management, and installation of accepted gifts, in partnership where possible with contributing entities.
Renewals, repairs, and maintenance	Delivery of an ongoing programme of general asset management including database upkeep, storage, maintenance, repairs and renewals for outdoor and indoor art collections, pou, and some historic or memorial assets.
Policy development	Responding to need for guidance and a consistent policy approach in conjunction with key stakeholders.
Sector responsiveness	Scoping of public art opportunities for alignment with strategic outcomes and funding and facilitating Public Art Advisory Panel input into Public Art programme planning.

Implications of the Emergency Budget:

17. Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget, adopted on 30 July 2020, responded to the financial situation faced by council post-COVID-19. The impact to public art was a 69 per cent reduction to the Public Art Regional CAPEX budget.

18. No new projects requiring CAPEX will be commenced due to the reduction of the 2020/2021 budget.

19. Public Art milestones for parent projects in Myers Park and on Federal Street have been adjusted across financial years to mitigate impact from budget reductions. Delivery timelines have not been compromised, and priority has been given to these projects in the 2020/2021 budget. Progression of Jubilee Bridge has also been prioritised. These three projects represent 43 per cent of 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme CAPEX expenditure.

20. Priority has also been given to projects that are on track to be completed in 2020/2021 e.g. Circles of Virtue (location to be confirmed) and Flight Trainer for Albatross (Devonport-Takapuna) fall into this category, as well as an artwork celebrating 50 years of Pakuranga Rotary service, in partnership with Pakuranga Rotary. These three projects represent 40 per cent of 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme CAPEX expenditure.

21. Public Art delivery for lower-priority projects have been moved to future financial years due to the reduction of the 2020/2021 budget. Limited progression of these lower-priority projects comprises 17 per cent of 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme CAPEX expenditure.

22. City Rail Link artwork progression for Aotea, Karangāhape and Maungawhau stations is limited by the progression of the parent project; any expenditure in the 2020/2021 financial year will remain as part of the OPEX budget. Depending on progression of the parent project, City Rail Link artwork future budget will be considered through the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 process.

23. Further detail for all projects can be found in Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. The Service and Asset Management Plan for Arts and Culture 2020 has made the following provision for climate impact:

· Arts grants, investments and activities advocate for sustainable environmental practice.

· Arts and culture programmes and experiences help advocate and build awareness of environmental issues.

· Develop strong relationships with communities to build capacity; and determine transfer of operations from council to community when appropriate.

25. As the Watercare Interceptor artworks progress, sustainable materials and endemic plantings will be considered as principle materials for the works.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme is a continuation of the 2019/2020 Public Art Regional Work Programme; developed in conjunction with key stakeholders, notably the Public Art Advisory Panel, Development Programme Office, and Auckland Transport.

27. The monuments workstream is underway in conjunction with Ngā Mātārae, Treaty Settlements, council’s Heritage Unit, and Waitematā Local Board, with feedback from key stakeholders via the Kaitiaki Forum.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme is funded by regional CAPEX budget. The Public Art team will continue to liaise with local boards across all projects as appropriate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. As per Toi Whītiki, Auckland’s Arts & Culture Strategic Action Plan “Arts, culture and design can help us achieve great spaces and places that are undeniably Auckland and unlike other cities around the world. Auckland’s distinctiveness is highlighted in a Māori identity. Partnership with Māori early in the planning phases for public art and place-making projects will ensure that our city visually reflects this.”

30. Council also has a commitment to partner with Mana Whenua to ensure that public art activities contribute to the visibility and celebration of their stories and histories. Council’s public art activities will give expression to, make visible and meet the place-making aspirations of Auckland’s Māori communities.

31. Māori identity sets Auckland apart from other world cities and is the city’s unique point of difference. Public art and design lead by Māori celebrate, express, and give mana to Mana Whenua stories, histories, and mātauranga Māori. It advances prosperity for Māori and benefits all Aucklanders.

32. The Auckland Council Public Art Policy states that Auckland's public art will celebrate the region's creativity, highlight Māori identity, reflect and express the diversity of Auckland's people, respond to the city’s unique natural landscape and the special character of its built environment, generate pride and belonging and transform Auckland's public spaces.

33. Auckland Council’s Public Art Collection has a strong representation of toi Māori works, including works by mana whenua artists. A third of all public art commissioned by council since November 2010 was conceived and created by practitioners who identify as Māori and more than a quarter of the council collection is toi Māori.

34. Future opportunities are being explored to ensure that Public Art policy reflects the priorities and cultural expression of mana whenua in the Tāmaki Makaurau landscape. Public Art staff are committed to the development of a Māori Public Art Plan – a blueprint for engagement with Mana Whenua which will support the above work.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget was adopted on 30 July 2020; the impact to public art was a 69 per cent reduction to the Public Art Regional CAPEX budget from $3,28 million to $1 million in 2020/2021.

36. The reduction represents a 76 per cent reduction from the prior year budget noting that actual spend for 2019/2020 was $1.16 million.

Table Two: Comparative view of 2019/2020 budget and 2020/2021 budget:

Financial year	Work programme	OPEX	CAPEX
2019/2020	Public Art	747,389	4,225,960
2020/2021	Public Art	743,100	1,000,000
		-0.6%	-76%

Table Three: Public Art CAPEX budget FY2020/2021 breakdown of expenditure by category:

Category	CAPEX expenditure	% of CAPEX budget
Hero	$90,000	9%
Integrated	$280,000	28%
Cultural & Community	$320,000	32%
Gifts	$120,000	12%
Renewals	$190,000	19%
Total	$1,000,000	100%

Table Four: Public Art OPEX budget FY2020/2021 breakdown of expenditure by category:

Category	OPEX expenditure	% of CAPEX budget
Hero	$15,000	2%
Digital & Online	$38,700	5%
Renewals, Repairs & Maintenance	$659,790	89%
Policy Development	$10,000	1%
Sector Responsiveness	$19,610	3%
Total	$743,100	100%

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. Staff have ongoing consideration for COVID-19 risks and implications and will continue to follow council and central government advice.

38. Examples of risks arising from COVID-19 include financial impact on suppliers, impacts to timelines due to lockdown periods, impact on sourcing supplies, difficulty with site visits and consultation due to lockdown periods, as well as increased health and safety considerations. All of these are mitigated in accordance with ongoing legal, procurement, and health and safety guidance from council.

39. Staff do see ongoing reputational risk to Public Art due to a significantly reduced budget in 2020/2021. Staff are exploring opportunities for partnership and alternate funding sources to future-proof the strategic vision of all Aucklanders participating in Arts and Culture.

40. Staff will continue to mitigate risk within individual projects as appropriate and identify change in status through Council’s IDF (Investment Delivery Framework) process, which has provision for capturing and escalating risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. Staff will proceed with the 2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2020/2021 Public Art Regional Work Programme Public Art	75

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Hayley Wolters, Arts and Culture Programme Planner

Emily Trent, Public Art Manager

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

15 October 2020

Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund

File No.: CP2020/14028

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the allocation of the 2020/2021 Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund was established to support the development of regional and sub-regional sport and recreation facilities that enable Aucklanders to be more active more often.

3. The Long-term Plan 2018-2028 allocated $120 million to the fund.

4. Following adoption of council’s emergency budget there is $6.5 million available to allocate in 2020/2021, which is also the first contestable funding round. The total funding available for allocation across the proposed three-year programme is $41 million.

5. Investment Fund criteria is aligned to ‘Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039’, which outlines council’s approach to sport investment over the next 20 years.

6. Staff are looking to build a programme of projects at varying stages of development (i.e. planning, design and capital development) to ensure sufficient capital investment is available for priority projects in the year that it is needed.

7. Decision making for this regionally contested fund sits with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee.

8. Local board and mana whenua views have also been captured at a project level to inform funding recommendations.

9. Fourteen projects are recommended to receive funding in this round.

10. Recommended projects are a combination of council-led and community-led initiatives, focussed on addressing gaps in provision and enabling council to proactively respond to changing sport and recreation preferences.

11. Where possible projects will deliver value for money through partnering and leveraging non-council funding.

12. The impact of COVID-19 on council budgets and funding partner grant availability has been considered in making report recommendations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) approve the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund preliminary allocation programme for 2020-2023 as follows:

i) Mahurangi Community Sport and Recreation Collective Incorporated (2193116) – multisport indoor facility - $2,250,000

ii) Auckland Netball Centre Incorporated (221532) – site investigation and business case for future indoor/covered court development - $200,000

iii) Kolmar Charitable Trust (1567130) – indoor court investigation in the Manukau area - $80,000

iv) North Shore Rowing Club Incorporated (222791) – detailed design of boat storage facility - $32,500

v) Auckland Rugby Union Incorporated (221293) – investigation to upgrade sports fields and floodlighting - $150,000

vi) Matakana Coast Trail Trust (2596882) – mapping, engineering and easements for coastal trail development - $500,000

vii) Howick Bowling Club Incorporated (221352) – installation of two covered bowling greens - $350,000

viii) The Woodhill Sands Trust (2643711) – upgrade of competition surface, ablutions block and health and safety mitigation - $372,000

ix) Pohutukawa Coast Bike Club Incorporated (2374158) – development of new mountain bike tracks - $109,440

x) Auckland Downhill Club incorporated (1935993) – development of new mountain bike tracks - $150,000

xi) West Coast Riders Club Incorporated (1800387) – development of new mountain bike tracks - $50,000

b) approve $5,700,000 to sports field upgrades and floodlighting to be delivered by Auckland Council at the following locations:

i) Mangere Centre Park (subject to completion of the park master plan)

ii) Papatoetoe Recreation Grounds

iii) Mountfort Park

c) endorse the request that the Finance & Performance Committee approve the change in budget to convert $5,700,000 operational budget to capital budget to properly account for the council-led projects

d) authorise the General Manager, Parks, Sport and Recreation to prepare and execute development funding agreements for the approved projects.

e) note that staff are to bring projects that require further investigation at the time of this report back to committee before the next contestable grant round, if they align strongly with Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund criteria.

f) alter the $785,000 Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Funding from 2018/2019, previously allocated to the Mahu Vision Community Trust (ENV/2019/57), to the Mahurangi St-Columbia Presbyterian Church (2693891).

Horopaki

Context

13. The Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund is a contestable fund that supports the development of regional and sub-regional community sport and recreation facilities across Auckland.

14. It looks to address gaps in provision and allow council to proactively respond to the changing sport and recreation preferences of Aucklanders. Applicants may seek investment in the planning, design or, capital development stages of a project.

15. The Long-term Plan (LTP) 2018-2028 allocated $120 million to the fund over ten years. $7.5 million was allocated through a non-contestable funding round in 2018/2019, the first year of the fund. 2020/2021 is the first year of the contestable funding round.

16. Decision making for this regionally contested fund sits with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee.

17. The fund prioritises investment into facility development projects over $500,000 and partnerships able to leverage additional investment as follows:

18. Projects were assessed in the context of the Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039 and the following four investment principles:

i. 40 per cent – Equity: ensures equity of outcomes across the population regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status or location.

ii. 30 per cent – Outcome-focused: there is a clear ‘line of sight’ between the investment and the outcomes it delivers.

iii. 20 per cent – Financial sustainability: projects need to be financially viable and affordable for the public.

iv. 10 per cent – Accountability: investment should be efficient, effective, transparent and consistent.

19. Projects were also considered in the context of deliverability. This included the achievability of securing additional capital development funding, the complexity of delivery (e.g. land ownership, consenting, contamination, etc) and the capability of the team delivering the project.

20. The application process for the fund comprised two gateways:

i. Stage 1 (closed November 2019) – Expression of Interest. A one-page canvas that asked for key information about the problem and opportunity, the proposed intervention, where and who is involved, the funding required and the impact if delivered.

ii. Stage 2 (closed February 2020) – Full application. A formal application process asking the applicant to expand on their Expressions of Interest with further detail, including evidence such as needs analyses, feasibility studies, business cases, detailed design or, other supporting information as relevant to their application.

21. The fund was advertised through the Regional Sport Trust network to national and regional sport and recreation sports organisations as well as clubs. It was also advertised through media releases, across council networks and social media channels.

Table 1: number of Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund applications received

Grant Round	Applicants
Enquiries received by staff about the Fund	90
Stage 1 (Expressions of Interest) received	59 (from 90)
Projects with strong alignment to the Fund criteria	21 (from 59)
Stage 2 (detailed) applications received	17 (from 21)

22. In February-March 2020, staff attended 11 local board workshops (see resolutions in Attachment A) and two Sport & Recreation mana whenua workshops to seek feedback on and gauge support for the applications received.

23. An assessment panel comprised of Sport New Zealand and council staff reviewed Stage 2 applications.

24. A workshop with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events committee was held in March 2020.

25. Auckland’s COVID-19 lockdown prevented recommendations moving forward to a business meeting before the end of the 2019/2020 financial year.

26. Following adoption of council’s Emergency Budget, the fund is budgeted as follows for the next three years:

· $6.5 million in 2020/2021

· $20.94 million in 2021/2022

· $13.6 million in 2022/2023

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Recommended community-led projects for 2020/2021

27. COVID-19 has had significant impact on the partnership funding landscape for community-led sport facility projects, which has led to changes to some of the recommendations workshopped with the committee in March 2020.

28. Recommendations are made with the intent of building a programme of projects at varying stages of development (i.e. planning, design and capital development) to ensure sufficient capital investment is available for priority projects in the year that it is needed.

29. There are four options in respect to the funding recommendations presented:

i. fund all recipients as recommended in this report

ii. fund some of the recipients

iii. fund the recommended recipients to a greater or lesser extent than recommended

iv. fund none of the recommended recipients.

Table 2: summary of recommended community-led projects

Organisation	Project	Type and Location	Total cost (current stage)	Confirmed funding	Funding recommendation	Balance funding required
Mahu Community Sport and Rec Collective	Multi-sport indoor facility	Capital development Rodney	$4,750,000	$250,000	$2,250,000	$2,250,000
Auckland Netball Centre Incorporated	Geotech analysis and business case	Investigation Orakei	$200,000	$10,000	$190,000	$0
Kolmar Charitable Trust	Indoor court options analysis and feasibility	Investigation Ōtara-Papatoetoe	$150,000	$0	$80,000	$70,000
North Shore Rowing Club	Boat storage design	Design Upper Harbour	$62,500	$30,000	$32,500	$0
Auckland Rugby Union	Sports field upgrades across three parks	Investigation & Design Henderson-Massey, Franklin & Upper Harbour	$195,000	$45,000	$150,000	$0
Matakana Coast Trail Trust	100km walking trail	Investigation & Design Rodney	$1,250,000	$750,000	$500,000	$0
Howick Bowling Club	Two covered greens	Capital development Howick	$1,518,000	$957,000	$350,000	$211,000
The Woodhill Sands Trust	Competition surface, toilets and health and safety mitigation	Capital development Rodney	$672,000	$300,000	$372,000	$0
Pohutukawa Coast Bike Club	Mountain bike track development/upgrade	Capital development Franklin	$254,725	$145,285	$109,440	$0
Auckland Downhill Club	Mountain bike track development /upgrade	Capital development Rodney	$300,000	$8,000	$150,000	$142,000
West Coast Riders Club	Mountain bike track development/upgrade	Capital development Rodney	$75,000	$0	$50,000	$25,000
Total			$9,427,225	$2,495,285	$4,233,940	$2,698,000

Recommended council-led projects for 2020/2021

30. Expressions of Interest were received from a number of community groups seeking upgrades to the council-owned sport and recreation facilities they use to deliver their activities.

31. The fund looks to leverage other sources of funding to deliver sport and recreation outcomes through community-led partnership projects. Council-owned sports facilities are not typically eligible for partnership investment.

32. The fund can be invested into community-owned, school-owned or, council-owned assets. This flexibility is important as varying historical approaches to sport facility provision means asset ownership is not consistent across Auckland. This is evident from one sport to another and within the same sport across different facilities.

33. Community ownership (and the associated benefit of leveraged/partner funding) is desirable in respect to this Fund but is less significant a driver than the community outcomes the facility achieves.

34. A review of sport and recreation asset ownership across the region is currently underway to improve council insights and to inform future investment recommendations.

35. A Parks, Sport and Recreation sports field supply and demand analysis highlighted Māngere, Papatoetoe and Manurewa as the areas of Auckland in greatest need of investment.

36. The following recommended upgrades to field quality and lighting provision will reduce the number of weather-related cancellations and create additional sports field training capacity.

Table 3: summary of recommended council-led projects

Park	Type	Local board	Fund recommendation
Māngere Centre Park	Design & capital development	Mangere-Otahuhu	$2,000,000
Papatoetoe Recreation Ground	Design & capital development	Otara-Papatoetoe	$1,900,000
Mountfort Park	Design & capital development	Manurewa	$1,800,000
Total			$5,700,000

37. These projects will be delivered by council rather than community as council is the landowner and will carry out associated maintenance of the upgraded facilities.

38. Final project costs are subject to investigation and design, but a contingency has been accounted for. Any unspent budget will be reallocated in future years of the Fund.

39. Investment into Māngere Centre Park is subject to completion of the park master plan that is currently underway and due to be completed before the end of the 2020/2021 financial year.

Projects recommended for deferral

40. The following community-led projects have demonstrated good alignment to fund criteria but are not recommended to receive funding at this time.

Table 4: community-led projects recommended to be deferred

Organisation	Project	Project type	Amount requested
Auckland Hockey	Two hockey turfs in St Johns	Capital development	$4,500,000
Metro Park Trust	Multisport Pavilion in Millwater	Design	$152,000
Kristin School	Three covered multi-sport courts in Albany	Capital development	$300,000 - $450,000
Tōtara Park, Waiheke and Franklin Mountain Bike Clubs	Mountain bike track development in three council parks	Capital development	$250,000

41. The rationale for ‘deferring’ funding recommendations is related to either project delivery and achievability risk or further information still being required.

42. It is recommended that staff continue to work with applicants on these deferred projects to determine if and when they should be recommended for funding.

43. Recommendations may be presented to the committee prior to the 2021/2022 funding round through a short report if they have progressed sufficiently. This enables staff to be responsive and outcome-focused if and when project risks have been mitigated.

Projects that are not recommended

44. The Wasp Hangar indoor court project in Hobsonville was discussed as a possible funding recommendation at the committee workshop in March 2020.

45. This project was supported by the Upper Harbour Local Board, who had resolved (UH/2020/17) to reallocate $500,000 of the local board’s locally driven initiative capital expenditure to the project.

46. This project is no longer considered viable as the site has been put up for asset disposal by Panuku to meet Emergency Budget targets. Kainga Ora has offered to purchase the land.

47. Panuku no longer have the funds required to bring the building up to the required building code to meet sport and recreation requirements. Active Recreation budget to purchase fitness equipment to activate the space is also no longer available.

48. Staff will continue engagement with Kainga Ora about future recreational opportunities in Hobsonville.

Re-allocation of 2018/2019 Sport & Recreation Facility Investment Fund

49. In 2018/2019 (ENV/2019/57) $785,000 was allocated to the Mahu Vision Community Trust to build a multi-sport indoor court in Warkworth. While developing the funding agreement it was identified that the Trust was the venue operator, but not the asset owner.

50. To protect council’s investment, legal agreements must be with the asset owner, rather than the venue operator.

51. A change in grant recipient name is required but will not change the desired outcomes or delivery timeframe of this project - due to break ground in December 2020.

52. The owner of the indoor court asset is the Mahurangi St-Columba Presbyterian Church (2693891) (trading as Mahurangi Presbyterian Church).

53. Council does not grant funds to religious organisations unless there is a clear community purpose. This project has a clearly defined sport and recreation purpose and will generate 30+ hours of indoor community sport access per week.

54. There is precedent for investment into facilities owned by religious organisations for identified community purposes, e.g. St Heliers Presbyterian Church, Mt Eden Methodist Church.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

55. Sustainable design is a consideration across a number of sports and recreation projects that are reaching the detailed design stage, particularly in respect to rain-water capture, natural and solar lighting, building insulation, air conditioning and building material choice.

56. While many projects will be community-led, funding agreements will specifically ask groups (at the appropriate stage of project development) to investigate sustainable design as part of a good-practice approach.

57. Projects that are council-led will consider sustainable design as part of the project development and design process.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

58. Council departments and CCO’s inputted into the recommendations of this report, key stakeholder relationships and input are shown below.

Table 5: council department and CCO input to report recommendations

Department	Input to recommendations
Community Facilities	Input into the council-led sports field projects has been received from personnel in the design, maintenance and investment teams within Community Facilities. Overall, the department are supportive of the projects selected and indicative delivery timeframes proposed.
Finance and Legal	Consulted on matters relating to cashflows, taxation, governance structures, legal agreements and arrangements. Support for the way these arrangements are approached. As mentioned later in this report, ensuring council contracts with the right organisation is important from the perspective of accountability, but also to maximise the benefits of other aspects of the arrangements, e.g. tax credits.
Panuku	Agree the need to close out the Wasp Hangar project and are supportive of the Kolmar project that will inform Manukau Sports Bowl planning,
ATEED	Are aware of the investment recommendations in respect to two parks identified as possible training venues for the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023.

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

Local impacts and local board views

59. The regional and sub-regional nature of sport and recreation facilities that are the target of this fund mean there will likely be a multi-board impact from many projects.

60. While the fund targets regional and sub-regional facilities, local communities’ benefit from this investment as it aims to increase the level of community sport and recreation participation for all Aucklanders.

61. All community-led projects have been workshopped with the respective local board in which the facility is located.

62. The council-led sports field upgrade projects have not been workshopped with local boards, but staff understand there is strong support for them based on sports park work programme conversations.

63. Three local boards have allocated discretionary budget (to projects recommended in this report) in this financial year, reinforcing the local significance of regional and sub-regional projects in their areas.

64. Detailed local board views and resolutions are at Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

65. Fund assessment criteria has a stronger weighting for projects that are Māori-led, can demonstrate strong collaboration with Māori, increase the participation of Māori in sport or recreation, and/or focus on activities with the likelihood of high Māori participation.

66. Staff attended the North-West and Central-South Parks, Sport & Recreation mana whenua forums in March 2020.

67. Mana whenua felt that whilst the assessment criteria developed did reflect council’s Sport Investment Plan, the plan’s prioritisation of the issue of equity had not been sufficiently addressed through the contestable process.

68. Mana whenua would like to see a more targeted approach to investment in areas of highest need, noting a contestable process often creates a bias towards communities of high capability and capacity.

69. Mana whenua were supportive of the approach suggested to invest into the upgrade of sports fields in Manurewa, Māngere and Papatoetoe. This was seen as an example of high need being prioritised over other drivers (e.g. leveraged funding).

70. Positive feedback was received in the support of the Matakana Trails Trust project, noting the project had been developed in partnership with Ngati Manuhiri, council’s regional parks team, NZTA, Department of Conservation, Walking Access Commission and private landowners as a stakeholders from the start.

71. Positive feedback was received for the Woodhill Sands Trust’s equestrian proposal, noting high levels of communication with mana whenua about that project.

72. Two projects in particular received positive feedback in respect to delivering positive sport and recreation outcomes for Māori:

· Sports field investment into Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Manurewa

· Manukau area indoor courts

73. There was some concern about the location of the proposed mountain bike trails in respect to land of cultural and heritage value. To mitigate concerns funding agreements will require applicants to engage with mana whenua before track location is confirmed.

74. Ahead of the next funding round mana whenua have asked for workshops to discuss opportunities for Māori to apply for the fund. They would also like a workshop prior to investment decisions being made to review potential delivery challenges, like those noted with the mountain bike proposals. This will be factored into the 2021/2022 funding round timeline.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Overview

75. The fund is a regional budget allocated through the LTP 2018-2028. The fund is budgeted as follows for the next three years:

· $6.5 million in 2020/2021

· $20.94 million in 2021/2022

· $13.6 million in 2022/2023

76. 1.5 per cent of the total fund budget is allocated to management of the fund and to undertake additional work that may arise to maintain project momentum.

77. The fund can be invested into community-owned or council-owned assets. It may also be invested into school or religious-owned assets if the outcome achieved is for a clear community sport benefit.

78. In approving grants to organisations for planning, investigation and design it needs to be acknowledged that this work may not result in a viable project; it is effectively ‘sunk money’.

79. Similarly, if council-funded planning and investigation work supports the business case for a facility to proceed, there is a high probability that further funding applications will be received to support the capital development aspect of the project.

Consequential Opex

80. The Long-term Plan 2018-2028 includes provision for additional operational costs arising from investment in new or expanded assets (i.e. consequential opex). The amount of additional opex provided for in the Long-term Plan includes provision for costs arising from both council’s annual capex investment and an assumption from assets that are delivered by third parties and vested to council.

81. The Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund is normally grant funded to other organisations to invest in facilities that are not owned by council, and for which council does not have ongoing operational or renewal cost obligations.

82. Use of the fund to deliver council owned assets means that the normal consequential opex provision for council capex investment does not apply. However, staff have estimated that the consequential opex costs arising from the proposed investment are minimal as it is an improvement in assets rather than a new asset. These increased marginal costs can be met from the opex provisions in the Long-term Plan.

Partnership funding

83. One of the benefits of investing into a community-owned asset is the ability of the project to leverage third party investment such as philanthropic, class four gaming and central government funding.

84. Table 2 shows the total cost of community-led projects in this funding round is $9.4 million. $2.5m has been secured from partner investment, with an additional $2.7m still to be secured from partner funding sources.

85. $4.2m is recommended to be granted to community groups to deliver these projects, which is less than 50% of the total project delivery cost. This meets the original partnership objectives of the Fund.

Cashflow versus allocation of funding

86. The nature of these projects is that council often plays the role of ‘cornerstone funder’, which projects rely on as a catalyst to approach other funders for backing and support.

87. Although there are budget allocations for each year, the drawdown of cash may not occur until several years later when conditions attached to the grants have been satisfied (e.g. all consents in place, all funds raised to enable the facility to be completed.)

88. The funding agreements used by council typically allow a three-year window for organisations to complete all the work necessary, including fundraising, to enable a project to commence construction.

89. There can be up to a three- or four-year difference between the allocation of funds and the actual drawdown of cash. Sunset clauses in the agreements enable council to reassess and reconfirm its commitment to the project, or to terminate the arrangement.

90. Any funds granted to an organisation are released on a progressive drawdown basis, according to the terms of the funding agreement.

91. The estimated drawdown of funding across both the recommended community-led and council-led projects is shown below. The total allocations referenced in Table 2 and Table 3 of the report total $9,933,940. This is phased across 3 years as noted in the below table.

Table 6: estimated drawdown of funding across all projects

All Projects	FY 2021	FY 2022	FY 2023	Total across 3 years
Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund Budget	$6,500,000	$20,940,000	$13,668,800	$41,108,800
Estimated Drawdown	$1,281,940	$5,102,000	$3,550,000	$9,933,940
Balance	$5,218,060	$15,838,000	$10,118,800	$31,174,860

92. The balance for 2020-2021 of $5,218,060 is proposed to be carried forward to the 2023-2024 financial year unless a recommendation to allocate funding to a deferred project is put forward prior to end of the financial year.

93. The development of large regional and sub-regional facilities will lead to an increased number of requests for significant capital development funding in future funding rounds. The scale of investment may require multi-year funding.

94. Budget flexibility is important to take advantage of partner funding opportunities and timelines as they arise.

Tax credits for council

95. A little highlighted benefit of council investing into third-party, community owned facilities, is the 28 per cent tax credit benefit available to the ‘Council Family/Group’. These third-party organisations must be registered charities to receive the benefit.

96. As some of the wider council’s trading activities are taxable in nature, grants made by council to bona fide charities / charitable entities that are developing facilities qualify as ‘donations’ enabling council to receive a tax credit equal to 28 per cent of the value of the grant to be offset against any tax payable by council.

97. While there is a timing difference associated with paying these grants and receiving the tax credits, once applied, these credits reduce the net cost of the qualifying grants to the council group. Staff are therefore mindful of ensuring that the recipient entities satisfy the criteria as qualifying.

98. These tax credits are not available to re-invest into the fund however, the benefits accrue to the council family of organisations, and result in an overall reduced cost for ratepayers.

99. The estimated tax credit council would receive based on grants to community groups in this funding round is $1.18m.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

100. Third party investment (e.g. class four gaming, philanthropic, commercial, central government, etc) plays a significant role in the development of sport and recreation facilities.

101. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the financial implications of COVID-19 will remain a risk to both council and funding partner budgets for the foreseeable future.

102. Three key mitigations have been taken in respect to project delivery risk, which has resulted in a change to some of the recommendations workshopped with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events committee in March 2020.

103. Firstly, the deliverability of projects is a key weighting of the criteria used to determine funding recommendations. This includes:

· having an achievable funding plan in place

· having the necessary skills and expertise (in-house or procured) to deliver the project

· completion of relevant project milestones such as securing site tenure, consents, etc

104. Secondly, staff meet regularly with other sport sector funding organisations to discuss funding availability and grant round timing. Whilst each funder has their own funding priorities and decision-making processes to follow, recommendations are aligned where possible.

105. Thirdly, nine out of fourteen projects do not require any additional funding to complete this stage of their project, so the risk profile is low.

106. Staff have confidence in the funding plan of the other five projects, but note the highest risk is the Mahurangi Community Sport and Recreation Collective who have the largest capital amount to raise. Council traditionally plays the role of cornerstone funder in projects like this and have confidence in the funding plan put forward.

107. Some groups who expressed an interest in the fund but were not a high funding priority (based on grant criteria), were redirected to local board community grants or, other sport sector grant opportunities. Other groups may have been asked to refine their proposals before applying again in the 2012/2022 funding round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

108. Staff will request that operational grant budget of $5,700,000 be converted to capital budget to properly account for the council-led projects.

109. Staff will prepare funding agreements and work with recipient groups to progress the projects.

110. Staff will continue to work with applicants on deferred projects to determine if and when they should be recommended for funding. These may be presented to the committee prior to the 2021/2022 funding round through short report.

111. Staff will undertake a review of the first year of the contestable grant process to improve processes and applicant experience and inform the committee of the 2021/2022 funding round timeline by memo.

112. Staff will continue to encourage community groups to engage with mana whenua about their projects and bring them to mana whenua forums at the earliest opportunity.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund: Local Board Resolutions	93

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Neil Coventry - Sport & Recreation Team Leader

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

15 October 2020

Attachment A: local board views

o Local board views about the 2019/2020 Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund

o In March 2020, all community-led Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund projects were workshopped with the respective local board in which the facility is located.

o Local board budget allocations

o Three local boards have reinforced the local significance of regional or sub-regional projects in their areas by allocating discretionary budget, either in this financial year or previous years:

· Howick (HW/2020/36) - $157,000 to Howick Bowls in 2019/2020

· Franklin (FR/2020/90) - $70,285 to Pohutakawa Coast Bike Club in 2019/2020

· Upper Harbour (UH/2020/17) - $500,000 to the Wasp Hangar indoor court project in 2019/2020

o The Franklin Local Board (FR/2020/21) funded two projects from their discretionary Sport and Active Recreation budget, meaning those applicants were able to withdraw their Stage 2 request for regional grant funding:

· $50,000 to Franklin Gymsports Incorporated towards a feasibility study and business case for a gymsports facility. Franklin Gymsports are likely to apply for regional funding for detailed design in a future round.

· $50,000 to Counties Manukau Hockey Association towards renewal of the hockey turf at Rosa Birch Park, Pukekohe

o Two local boards raised concerns about projects in their areas

o Manurewa (MR/2020/29) – Totara Park Mountain Bike Club for track development

o Concerns were raised about responsibilities for the maintenance and renewals of new tracks on council land and insufficient current consequential opex to maintain the existing track network to an appropriate standard.

o The mitigation is to defer a funding recommendation until staff have investigated and resolved these issues.

o Ōtara-Papatoetoe (OP/2020/27) – Aktive for indoor court site options investigation on behalf (as Chair) of the regional indoor court leadership group

o The local board was concerned about the risk of work not being aligned to the Manukau Sports Bowl master plan; that it may not meet the interests of local communities or, consider local needs and was not workshopped with the board sufficiently at the time for them to support it.

o The mitigation is that the Aktive and Kolmar projects be combined and funds granted to Kolmar to procure the professional services required to progress this project.

o Key stakeholders to this project will include:

· the Indoor Court Leadership Group, which is comprised of representatives from basketball, volleyball, futsal, badminton, table tennis and netball. They in turn represent six national sports organisations, 15 regional sports organisations and all affiliated clubs.

· Sport New Zealand

· Regional Sports Trusts

· Manukau Institute of Technology (current partner of Kolmar Charitable Trust)

· Auckland Council and Panuku Development Auckland

o This approach will specifically mitigate the local boards request to:

· work and consult with Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

· ensure that ongoing consultation and planning (e.g. Master Plan for Manukau Sports Bowl) is fully taken into account by working with Panuku Development Auckland and council departments

· work with the groups, organisations who use the Manukau Sports Bowl.

o
Local board resolutions in respect to the 2019/2020 Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund

Tables one and two show local board and Governing Body resolutions in respect to groups/projects that have applied for the fund.

Council-led sports field development projects do not have local board resolutions. Staff understand the recommendation to upgrade sports fields is supported by the local boards in which those parks are located.

o Table one: list of local board resolutions

· Project	· Local Board	· Resolution Number
· NZ Rugby Union - Bombay Rugby	· Franklin	· FR/2020/21
· Pohutukawa Coast Bike Club	· Franklin	· FR/2020/21 & FR/2020/90
· NZ Rugby Union - Waitemata Rugby	· Henderson-Massey	· HM/2020/36
· Howick Bowling Club	· Howick	· HW/2020/36
· Auckland Netball Centre	· Orakei	· OR/2020/26
· Kolmar Trust	· Ōtara-Papatoetoe	· OP/2020/27
· Auckland Downhill Club	· Rodney	· *
· Mahurangi Community Sport and Recreation Collective	· Rodney	· RD/2020/18
· Matakana Coast Trail Trust	· Rodney	· RD/2020/18
· West Coast Riders Club	· Rodney	· *
· The Woodhill Sands Trust	· Rodney	· RD/2020/18
· NZ Rugby Union - Windsor Park Trust	· Upper Harbour	· UH/2020/16
· North Shore Rowing Club	· Upper Harbour	· UH/2020/16
· Western Springs College**	· Waitemata	· WTM/2020/55 & ENV/2017/71

* Projects endorsed by urgent decision of the Rodney Local Board on 23 September 2020. Formal resolution to be passed at next local board business meeting on 21 October 2020.

**Staff took the opportunity to workshop the Western Springs College Indoor Court project with the Waitemata local board as the original regional body funding resolution (to allocate funding for investigation and design) was made in 2017. This was to ensure the new board were aware of project progress and expected request for significant capital funding in the 2022 and/or 2023 Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund round.

o Table two: deferred decisions[AB1]

· Project	· Local Board	· Resolution Number
· Franklin Mountain Bike Club	· Franklin	· FR/2020/21
· Metro Park Trust	· Hibiscus and Bays	· HB/2020/42
· Tōtara Park Mountain Bike Club	· Manurewa	· MR/2020/29
· Auckland Hockey	· Orakei	· OR/2020/26
· Kristin School	· Upper Harbour	· *
· Waiheke Mountain Bike Club	· Waiheke	· **

* Not yet workshopped with the Upper Harbour Local Board as staff only became aware of the project during investigations into the Wasp Hangar project. Investigation still underway.

** Not workshopped as Waiheke Local Board are undertaking a management plan review of the Onetangi Sports Park (proposed location of the mountain bike track), so new projects cannot be approved until that work is complete.

Table three: Projects that are not recommended

· Project	· Local Board	· Resolution Number
· Wasp Hangar	· Upper Harbour	· UH/2020/17

Franklin Local Board – 24 March 2020

Urgent Decision - Franklin Local Board agenda items from the cancelled 24 March 2020 business meeting

Resolution number FR/2020/21

MOVED by Chairperson A Baker, seconded by Member A Cole:

That the Franklin Local Board note the urgent decision as follows:

ii) Franklin Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Plan - allocation of funding for projects in 2019/2020.

That Franklin Local Board approve the following grants from line item 1256 of the 2019/2020 local board work programme:

a) $50,000 to Counties Manukau Hockey Association towards renewal of a hockey turf at Rosa Birch Park, Pukekohe

b) $50,000 to Franklin Gymsports Incorporated towards updating its feasibility study and preparing a business case for a gymsports facility.

iii) Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund - applications from sports groups in the Franklin Local Board area.

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) does not endorse a Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund application from Franklin Gymsports for $56,000 to the 2019/2020 grant fund to update its feasibility study and prepare a business case for a new purpose built gymsports facility. The local board has already funded this initiative at its March 2020 business meeting in item 12.

b) endorse an application from the Pōhutukawa Coast Mountain Bike Club for $150,000, to the 2019/2020 Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund, to winterproof mountain bike tracks in the Maraetai/Waiho block of Whitford Forest and construct new tracks in Whitford Forest.

c) endorse an application from Franklin Mountain Bike Club for $50,000 to the 2019/2020 Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund, to winterproof mountain bike tracks and extend a track at Puni Recreation Reserve

d) endorse an application from Bombay Rugby Club for $52,500 to the 2019/2020 Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund, to complete a needs assessment, feasibility and business case to upgrade sports fields and field B lights at Bombay Rugby Club.

CARRIED

Franklin Local Board – 22 September 2020

Franklin Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Plan - allocation of funding for projects in 2020/2021

Resolution number FR/2020/90

MOVED by Member L Soole, seconded by Member M Bell:

That Franklin Local Board:

a) approve the following grants from line item 63 of the 2020/2021 local board work programme:

i. $70,285 to the Pohutukawa Coast Bike Club towards constructing new tracks and winterproofing tracks in Whitford Forest

ii. $46,545 to Maraetai Beach Boating Club towards renovating toilets and changing rooms and laying a concrete pad

iii. $33,170 to Pukekohe Netball Centre towards resealing one netball court with a rubber surface.

CARRIED

Henderson-Massey Local Board – Tuesday 17 March 2020

Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020 - project endorsement

Resolution number HM/2020/36

MOVED by Chairperson C Carter, seconded by Member I Papau:

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) endorse the following application to be considered for investment through the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020:

i) Waitemata Rugby Union Football and Sports Club Incorporated:

“Waitemata Park Sports Field and Light Upgrades”

CARRIED

Hibiscus & Bays Local Board – 19 March 2020

2019/2020 Regional Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund project endorsement

Resolution number HB/2020/42

MOVED by Deputy Chairperson V Short, seconded by Member J Parfitt:

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) endorse the Metro Park Community Sports Charitable Trust Pavilion Project application to be considered for investment through the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020

CARRIED

Howick Local Board – 16 March 2020

Sport and Recreation Investment Fund Howick Local Board project endorsement

Resolution number HW/2020/36

MOVED by Member D Collings, seconded by Member B Burns:

That the Howick Local Board:

a) endorse the Howick Bowling Club covered greens project.

b) allocate $157,000 towards the project, subject to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee allocation of funds from the Sport Recreation Facility Investment Fund (SRIF) in April 2020.

CARRIED

Manurewa Local Board – 19 March 2020

Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund - application by Tōtara Park Mountain Bike Club.

Resolution number MR/2020/29

MOVED by Chairperson J Allan, seconded by Member D Pizzini:

That Manurewa Local Board

a) endorse an application from the Tōtara Park Mountain Bike Club for $150,000, to the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund, to construct mountain bike tracks in Tōtara Park.

b) expresses concern that staff are yet to resolve the issue of responsibility for the maintenance and renewals of the new tracks despite the board raising this issue in its February workshop, and the Chair’s subsequent request for a meeting with staff, the club and the contractor in late February was not acted upon by staff.

c) reiterates it’s position that the board and the Club are unable to fund the future maintenance and renewals of the new tracks.

o CARRIED

Orakei Local Board – Thursday 19 March 2020

Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund Project Endorsement

Resolution number OR/2020/26

MOVED by Chairman S Milne, seconded by Member D Wong:

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) endorse Auckland Hockey’s application to the regionally contested Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020.

b) endorse Auckland Netball/Auckland Basketball Services Limited application to the regionally contested Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020.

CARRIED

Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board – 17 March 2020

Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund Project Endorsement

Resolution number OP/2020/27

MOVED by Member R Robertson, seconded by Deputy Chairperson A Choudhary:

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) support Kolmar Charitable Trust’s funding application to the 2019/2020 Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund; as the funding would assist in improving the network of sport and recreation facilities in the southern area of Auckland and recognise:

i) that the funds applied for will assist Kolmar Charitable Trust in gaining financial sustainability to achieve its aspirations.

ii) the importance of clubs working together to increase participation, making best use of local facilities.

iii) funding would assist in improving the network of sport and recreation facilities in the southern area of Auckland.

b) does not support at this stage, Aktive Auckland Sport and Recreation’s application to the 2019/2020 Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund; to fund procuring services to investigate the feasibility of developing an indoor court facility at the Manukau Sports Bowl, noting that the board:

i) has in place a three-year Local Board Plan and an agreed priority with the Governing Body in planning the future of the Manukau Sports Bowl.

ii) is responsible for place making to serve interests of local communities and would like to ensure that local voices, interests and priorities are retained in the master planning process.

iii) would welcome the opportunity to work with Aktive Auckland to consider whether its plans can be accommodated within the planning and board’s intent to prepare a master plan for the Manukau Sports Bowl. The board would like to have more detailed discussion on the options presented through this report. Noting also that these options were not part of the workshop on 25 February 2020, where the board expressed its concern to officers.

iv) is aware that this is a regional funding programme and that the Parks Arts Culture and Environment Committee (PACE) makes the decisions and is disappointed to find that the application from Aktive Auckland has progressed to this stage, given that project for which the funding is sought is associated with the future of a major local initiative, Manukau Sports Bowl.

iv) in the event that the Parks, Arts, Culture and Events Committee approve the grant to Aktive Auckland, the board requests that the grant is conditional for the applicant to:

A) work and consult with Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board.

B) ensure that ongoing consultation and planning (e.g. Master Plan for Manukau Sports Bowl) is fully taken into account by working with Panuku Development Auckland and council departments.

C) work with the groups, organisations who use the Manukau Sports Bowl.

CARRIED

Rodney Local Board – 18 March 2020

Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020

Resolution number RD/2020/18

MOVED by Deputy Chairperson B Houlbrooke, seconded by Member V Kenny:

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) endorse the following applications to be considered for investment through the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020:

i) Matakana Coastal Trails Trust: “Puhoi to Mangawhai”

ii) Mahurangi Community Sport and Recreation Collective: “Multisport Facility stage one”

iii) Woodhill Sands Trust: “Development of the existing Woodhill Sands Equestrian Centre”

b) note that Matakana Coast Trails Trust and Mahurangi Mahurangi Community Sport and Recreation Collective are already working with the Rodney Local Board on projects that are the subject of this application and that the Rodney Local Board has provided funding towards them.

CARRIED

Upper Harbour Local Board – 19 March 2020

12	2019/2020 Regional Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund projects endorsement
	Resolution number UH/2020/16 MOVED by Deputy Chairperson L Whyte, seconded by Member B Neeson: That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) endorse the following applications to be considered for investment through the Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020: i) Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated: Windsor Park development ii) North Shore Rowing Club: Rame Road Boathouse redevelopment. b) request speaking rights for the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson (who is also the co-topic area lead for Parks, Sport and Recreation) to speak in support of the Windsor Park and North Shore Rowing Club applications, which will be considered at the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee meeting in April 2020. CARRIED
13	Wasp Hangar: Community Recreation Facility
	Resolution number UH/2020/17 MOVED by Chairperson M Miles, seconded by Member B Neeson: That the Upper Harbour Local Board: a) endorse the Wasp Hangar: Community Recreation Facility Project application to the regional 2019/2020 Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund. b) reallocate $500,000 of the local board’s locally driven initiative capital expenditure, currently allocated as the local board’s contribution towards the proposed ‘one local initiative’, to the Wasp Hangar: Community Recreation Facility Project, subject to: i) security of tenure of the Wasp Hangar for a minimum of 10 years ii) allocation of funding shortfall required for fit-out costs from the regional Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund iii) allocation of the operational funding to the facility by the Finance and Performance Committee iv) allocation from the Active Recreation Commercial Fund for the leisure equipment costs. c) support the transition of the Wasp Hangar into council’s service asset portfolio. d) request speaking rights for the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson (who is also the co-topic area lead for Parks, Sport and Recreation) to speak in support of the Wasp Hangar Community Recreation Facility Project application, which will be considered at the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee meeting in April 2020. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Waitemata Local Board – 17 March 2020

Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund project endorsement

Resolution number WTM/2020/55

MOVED by Member A Bonham, seconded by Member G Gunthorp:

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) endorse the Western Springs College Ngā Puna o Waiōrea application to the regionally contested Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund 2019/2020.

· CARRIED

Environment and Community Committee – 16 May 2017

Partnership opportunity with Western Springs College for indoor courts

Shale Chambers spoke to the Committee on behalf of the Waitemata Local Board.

Resolution number ENV/2017/71

MOVED by Cr R Clow, seconded by Cr D Simpson:

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve entering into a partnership agreement with Western Springs College and the Ministry of Education to secure the option to provide four additional indoor courts for school and community use within the Western Springs College rebuild.

b) approve the allocation of up to $2 million from the Parks, Sport and Recreation Partnership budget as council’s contribution to the design process for the indoor courts as part of the Ministry of Education’s appointed design, engineering and build process of Western Springs College.

c) delegate the approval of the terms and conditions within the Partnership Agreement to the Chief Operating Officer.

d) request a full business case is developed for construction of the indoor courts at Western Springs College for consideration as part of the Long-term Plan for 2019 project commencement, including but not limited to community access, operational funding and governance.

· CARRIED

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

15 October 2020

Tree Risk Assessment Update

File No.: CP2020/14836

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the following tree risk assessment matters raised at the Audit and Risk Committee and referred to Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee (PACE Committee):

a) industry standards available for tree risk assessment

b) the current tree risk assessment practice across Community Facilities with respect to these industry standards

c) potential recommendations for improvements including for greater consistency across Community Facilities.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 24 August 2020, the Audit and Risk Committee referred the matter of tree risk assessments that are undertaken by Community Facilities as part of tree management in parks and on public land to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee (PACE Committee).

3. The Audit and Risk Committee recommended that the PACE Committee be provided information on the industry standards available for tree risk assessment and current tree risk assessment practice across Community Facilities (AUD/2020/44).

4. Community Facilities is responsible for the risk assessment of public trees on land owned by Auckland Council. Their work includes the risk assessments of trees in the road corridor managed by Auckland Transport. Community Facilities is not responsible for tree risk assessments on Regional Parks or the Auckland Botanical Gardens, on land managed by co- governance entities or trees located on private property and any activities by these groups are outside the scope of this report.

5. Tree risk management is currently not subject to sector regulations and there is no single tree risk assessment “standard” that applies. Several different risk assessment methods and tools have been developed and are used to undertake tree risk assessments. Different arborists use different tools depending on their preference or the circumstances.

6. The commonly available assessment methodologies are summarised in Attachment A. The information has been sourced from council expert staff knowledge of the products and methods, published expert literature and is supplemented by or fact checked using the providers’ websites.

7. The council’s approach to enterprise risk management is governed by the Auckland Council Enterprise Risk Framework (the Enterprise Risk Framework) which adopts the ISO 31000 Risk Management Standard. Sitting under the overarching framework is the Auckland Council’s Health and Safety Framework and Corporate Standards which are used in specific situations where health and safety risk is a factor and the council has obligations as an employer.

8. The risk and health and safety frameworks and Corporate Standards guide how the council assesses and manages risks. In addition, specific risk assessment tools are used as appropriate for particular subject areas and circumstances, for example specific assessment tools can be used to assess flood risk, earthquake risk, or tree risk.

9. The Community Facilities department uses “Visual Tree Assessment” (VTA) as a primary method to assess tree risks and identify next steps. If the council arborist concludes that more detail or a further assessment is warranted, the tree risk assessment is typically outsourced to a specialist who can provide specialist tools (e.g. sonic tomography, radar (GPR), resistance drills, air excavation, drones and/or aerial access) and methods (e.g. VALID) typically unavailable to council staff.

10. Staff from the Legal and Risk department, together with Assurance Services and Community Facilities consider that current Community Facilities tree risk assessment processes are generally in accordance with the available standards and methodologies.

11. The operational tree risk assessment process is being documented and, as part this exercise, further consideration is being made of possible tree assessment process improvements across the Community Facilities department.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) note the briefing on the available industry standards for tree risk assessment and community facilities tree risk assessment practice.

b) note that the Community Facilities department uses the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) method and at times outsource to external contractors who utilise additional tools and methods as appropriate and in line with best practice. The tree risk assessment processes are generally in accordance with the available standards and methodologies.

c) note that an operational process document for tree risk assessment across Community Facilities is currently being prepared.

d) note that the director of Customer and Community Services will continue to provide updates on progress to the local board chairs forum and the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee on a regular basis.

Horopaki

Context

12. Information about tree risk assessments is being reported to the PACE Committee rather than another Committee because its focus areas and responsibilities in its delegations include parks and reserves and community facilities. A large proportion of council owned trees are in parks and reserves and a significant proportion of community facilities tree management is in parks and reserves.

13. Community Facilities is responsible for the risk assessment of public trees on land owned by Auckland Council. Their work includes the risk assessments of trees in the road corridor managed by Auckland Transport.

14. Community Facilities is not responsible for tree risk assessments on Regional Parks or the Auckland Botanical Gardens, on land managed by co- governance entities or trees located on private or Crown-owned property and any activities by these groups are outside the scope of this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Industry standards available for tree risk assessment

15. Tree risk assessment is a formalised method of identifying, analysing, and evaluating risks (Klein (2019)^{^[1]}).

16. All commonly used risk assessment methods consider:

· the likelihood that all or part of the tree will fail (failure potential)

· the likelihood of the target being present/struck (target occupancy/likelihood of impact)

· the consequences of failure (personal injury, damage to property, or disruption of services/activities).

17. Within the tree management sector, several different risk assessment methods and tools have been developed and are used to undertake tree risk assessments. Different arborists use different tools depending on their preference or the circumstances.

18. The tree risk management profession is currently not subject to sector regulations and there is no single tree risk assessment “standard” or methodology that applies.

19. The following are the commonly used methods nationally and internationally that are used for tree risk assessment:

· ISA TRAQ – International Society of Arboriculture Tree Risk Assessment Qualification

· Tree Hazard Evaluation (Matheny and Clark 1994)

· Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) (Mattheck and Breloer 1994)

· United States Department of Agriculture Forest Services Community Tree Risk Evaluation Method (Pokorny 2003)

· Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA) (Ellison 2005)

· ISA BMP Method (Smiley et al. 2011)

· VALID (Evans).

20. These methodologies are summarised in Attachment A. The information has been sourced from council expert staff knowledge of the products and methods, published expert literature and is supplemented by or fact checked using the providers’ websites.

Current tree risk assessment practice across Community Facilities

21. The council’s general approach to enterprise risk management is governed by the Auckland Council Enterprise Risk Framework (the Enterprise Risk Framework) which adopts the ISO 31000 Risk Management Standard. Sitting under the overarching framework is the Auckland Council’s Health and Safety Framework and Corporate Standards which are used in specific situations where Health and Safety Risk is a factor and the council has obligations as an employer.

22. The frameworks and Corporate Standards guide and determine how the council assesses and manages risks. In addition, and to undertake detailed risk assessments for particular subject areas or circumstances, specific risk assessment tools are used as appropriate. For example, different risk assessment tools are available and can be used to assess flood risk, earthquake risk, or tree risk.

23. Community Facilities is responsible for the risk assessment of public trees on land owned by Auckland Council. Their work includes the risk assessments of trees in the road corridor managed by Auckland Transport. Community Facilities is not responsible for risk assessment on land managed by co- governance entities or trees located on private property and any activities by these groups are outside the scope of this report. Regional Parks and the Auckland Botanical Gardens are managed by the Regional Parks department and are also outside the scope of this report.

24. The Community Facilities department uses “Visual Tree Assessment” (VTA) as a primary method to assess tree risks and identify next steps. This process is carried out by a qualified arborist who is either contracted or is an internal staff member. At the conclusion of the VTA the arborist will determine if a tree or stand of trees pose a risk, should be further considered for hazard mitigation or should potentially be referred for further assessment.

25. At times a more detailed or advanced assessment might be required after the visual assessment if more information is needed. This may occur when a ground based VTA is insufficient to draw a conclusion and when the cost of further assessment is justified for the subject tree. For example, if the initial VTA reveals the presence of internal decay or a cavity, a more detailed assessment may be conducted to determine the extent of decay.

26. If the council arborist concludes that more detail or a further assessment is warranted, the tree risk assessment may be outsourced to a specialist who can provide specialist tools (e.g. sonic tomography, radar (GPR), resistance drills, air excavation, drones and/or aerial access) and methods (e.g. VALID) typically unavailable to council staff.

27. The risk assessment process used by the Community Facilities department involves determining:

· Tree defect identification

· Likelihood of failure assessment

· Contributing site factors

· Identifying potential targets

· Evaluation of target values and consequence of a failure

· Probability of loss or damage occurring.

Legal requirements and framework

28. Council is subject to the same regulations as any landowner when managing trees on its land. Depending on the circumstances, the Council may need to obtain a resource consent for intended works. Where the tree at issue is in a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, there may be additional requirements imposed by that Act.

Qualifications and experience of staff undertaking assessments

29. The Community Facilities department’s arborists and urban forest specialists are required to have a minimum tertiary qualification equal to New Zealand Qualifications Authority Level 4 in arboriculture or a similar related field, as well as a minimum of eight years relevant industry experience.

30. Arboriculture contractors carrying out activities under the Arboriculture Maintenance Contracts are required to have a suitable qualification (New Zealand Certificate/Diploma in Arboriculture or equivalent) or experience (minimum two years practical experience within the arboriculture industry) for the tasks they are responsible.

Observations and recommendations

31. Staff from the Legal and Risk department, together with Assurance Services and Community Facilities consider that current Community Facilities tree risk assessment processes are generally in accordance with the available standards and methodologies.

32. The operational tree risk assessment process by the Community Facilities department is being documented in an operational procedure. As part of this exercise, further consideration is being made of possible risk assessment process improvements across the Community Facilities department and its contractors.

33. Tree risk management is a specialist and complex area where documentation would help improve management practice and strengthen the process to ensure we move from good practice to best practice and improve understanding and transparency for the community about the council’s practices.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34. Trees are an important mitigation for climate change and part of the ecosystem, and the impact of tree removals are mitigated by replanting where possible.

35. The operational risk assessment documentation will include erosion, ecological and climate change considerations consistent with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan and Te Rautaki Ngahere ā-Tāone o Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland's Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36. This report addresses the tree risk assessment process used by Community Facilities to assess publicly owned trees in Auckland. It excludes other council departments or council controlled organisations that are not supported directly by the Community Facilities department.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. Local boards have responsibilities concerning trees as both decision makers for local areas and in identifying and communicating the preferences of the people in its local board area. Local boards also are a source of local expertise and community knowledge.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. This report addresses the operational process currently followed by Community Facilities for tree risk assessments.

39. The current Community Facilities operational approach to tree risk assessment draws on principles and feedback previously provided by Mana Whenua.

40. The tree risk assessment processes are aligned with and take into account the Te Rautaki Ngahere ā-Tāone o Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland's Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy, the development of which involved engagement and feedback from Mana Whenua.

41. Trees that are removed for health and safety reasons, are replaced with indigenous trees and vegetation where possible to recognize and reflect cultural, amenity, landscape and ecological values.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. The tree risk assessment process is part of Community Facilities operating budgets. The recommendation to document and improve the risk assessment process does not commit the council to any additional financial impact or expenditure.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The risks and mitigations concerning potential tree risks and their management are discussed in the report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. Staff will continue to draft an operational process document for tree risk management for the Community Facilities department.

45. The director of Customer and Community Services will continue to provide updates on progress to the local board chairs forum and the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee on a regular basis.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of tree risk assessment methods	109

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Emma Mosely - Chief Risk Officer

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Authoriser

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

[1] Klein, R.W.; Kaiser, A.K.; Hauer, R.J.; Hansen, G.; Escobedo, F.J. (2019) Risk assessment and risk perception of trees: A review of literature relating to Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. Arboriculture and urban Forestry 2019. 45(1):23-33

Chairperson	Cr Alf Filipaina
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Members	Cr Josephine Bartley	IMSB Member Mr Terrence Hohneck
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore	IMSB Member Tony Kake
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Tracy Mulholland
	Cr Pippa Coom	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	Cr John Watson
	Cr Shane Henderson	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Richard Hills

Date	Subject
16/09/2020	Email - Regional Parks Management Plan
22/09/2020	Update on the Age-friendly Auckland Project, Tāmaki tauawhi kaumātua
22/09/2020	A Night Shelter in Auckland
30/09/2020	Email – Extension to Regional Parks Management Review consultation period
7/10/2020	Memo - Update on Auckland Council Whānau Internal Strategy to Minimise Alcohol-Related Harm 2016
8/10/2020	Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Update

Date	Workshop/briefing
09/09/2020	Auckland's Citizens Advice Bureau Regional Service Provision and Funding

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Email - Regional Parks Management Plan (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Memo - Update on the Age-friendly Auckland Project, Tāmaki tauawhi kaumātua (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Memo - A Night Shelter in Auckland (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇩	Email - Extension to Regional Parks Management Review consultation period	115
e ⇩	Memo - Update on Auckland Council Whānau Internal Strategy to Minimise Alcohol-Related Harm 2016	114
f ⇩	Memo - Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discriminatin against Women (CEDAW) Update	133
g ⇩	Workshop - Auckland's Citizens Advice Bureau Regional Service Provision and Funding	145

Author	Maea Petherick - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services