Agenda of Governing Body - Thursday, 27 March 2025

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Council proposal to the Department of Internal Affairs on the Regional Deals Framework 2025
b ⇨	Auckland Council's submission on the Local Government (Water Services) Bill

Governing Body

27 March 2025

Chief Executive and Group Chief Financial Officer Update

File No.: CP2024/19227

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a monthly update to the Governing Body on key matters from the Auckland Council Chief Executive and Group Chief Financial Officer as at 28 February 2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Chief Executive and Group Chief Financial Officer’s Update

2. Phil Wilson, Chief Executive and Ross Tucker, Group Chief Financial Officer will provide a summary of highlights and key activities and updates for the following:

· Service performance

· Long-term Plan (LTP) update (including CCO Transition updates – Attachment A)

· Annual Plan 2025/2026

· Credit rating frameworks

· Financial performance for Auckland Council and the Auckland Council Group

· Economic update

· Progress against the St James theatre project – Attachment B.

Annual Plan 2025/2026

3. Public consultation on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 commenced on 28 February and closes on 28 March 2025.

4. Following Budget Committee decisions in December 2024, consultation materials were prepared and presented to the Governing Body on 19 February 2025 and approved. The consultation document seeks feedback on key proposals, including funding for major events, destination marketing, and visitor attraction.

5. Over 80 engagement events have been scheduled over the consultation period, encompassing a variety of formats such as in-person events, online information sessions and targeted stakeholder outreach. Some examples include the Diversity festival at Manukau, a Waitākere Central Library drop-in session, online hui for mana whenua and mataawaka, Pasifika fono in South and West Auckland, and ‘Have Your Say’ events for regional organisations and interest groups. Additionally, participatory forums as part of the Deliberative Engagement approach have been held with advisory panels and demographically representative groups of the general public.

6. During February and March 2025, a Budget Refresh process is underway across the group to review and update financial forecasts, incorporating changes in assumptions and the latest project information. The outcomes of this review will be presented to the Budget Committee mid-April 2025, informing the development of the final Mayoral Proposal.

7. The Budget Refresh process has identified some emerging cost pressures for local services. This has created some complex funding issues to be resolved as we transition to the new equity-based funding model that will see Local Boards being empowered with more budget autonomy as well as greater budget responsibility.

8. On 17 March 2025, local boards were advised that 2025/2026 will be treated as a transition year and these local cost pressures would be addressed without any reduction or redistribution of the proposed fairer funding top-ups for 2025/2026. Local Boards will not need to make any service level changes for the coming year and budget mitigations will be found through other means as part of the Annual Plan process.

9. Staff will continue to work with local boards to minimise the underlying cost pressures, increase revenue and find enduring solutions from 2026/2027.

Credit rating frameworks

10. On February 24, 2025, S&P Global lowered its institutional framework assessment for New Zealand local councils from the highest rating of “extremely predictable and supportive” to the second highest rating of “very predictable and well balanced”. They now see the trend of their institutional framework assessment as stable.

11. In S&P Global’s view, the New Zealand's local government sector is heavily indebted due to councils' consistently increasing capital investments. They believe the sector's revenue and expenditure balance and predictability of policy have weakened.

12. As a result of this, on 18 March 2025, they lowered by one notch their credit ratings on 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations.

13. This framework change has not directly impacted Auckland Council as our financial projections show a comparatively stronger and more sustainable debt position following the adoption of our Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and the Government’s decision to implement financial separation for Watercare from 1 July 2025.

Financial performance for Auckland Council and the Auckland Council Group

14. The monthly financial dashboard for Auckland Council and the Auckland Council Group was not available at the time the agenda was due for release and will be made available prior to the meeting. A summary of the key highlights and results will be provided by the Group Chief Financial Officer at the meeting.

Economic update

15. Economic activity has stabilised, following a contraction in mid-2024. GDP rose by 0.7 per cent in the last quarter of 2024, in part due to seasonal factors, bringing annual change to -0.5 per cent. Electronic card transactions in January and February 2025, show a slight increase over average monthly spending in the last quarter of 2024 (after seasonal adjustment). A recovery in activity is likely to be gradual through 2025 as households remain cautious, despite recent interest rate cuts. The Reserve Bank’s outlook implies further cuts to the Official Cash Rate, with the next review on 9 April.

16. Demand for housing tends to fluctuate through the economic cycle. As of December 2024, Auckland’s housing pipeline included 20,200 homes: 13,800 under construction and 6,400 consented but not yet started. Figure 1 highlights the pipeline’s sensitivity to interest rates, which impact on demand and project viability. Interest rates cuts should boost demand for housing in 2025. The takeaway is that Auckland’s housing supply has been responsive to demand through these cyclical fluctuations, supported by the development opportunities created under the Unitary Plan.

Figure 1: Auckland housing pipeline quarterly snapshots

17. Updated indicators provide high-level context on the current state of the economy.

· Annual inflation (Consumer Price Index) remained at 2.2 per cent in the December 2024 quarter. Non-tradable inflation was at 4.5 per cent – non-tradables are goods and services that do not face foreign competition and are an indicator of domestic demand and supply conditions. (next inflation release: 17 April 2025).

· The Official Cash Rate (OCR) rate was reduced from 4.25 per cent to 3.75 per cent on 19 February 2025. (next review: 9 April 2025)

· The unemployment rate rose to 5.1 per cent in the December 2024 quarter, up from 4.8 per cent in September 2024 (next release: 7 May 2025).

· Gross Domestic Product increased by 0.7 per cent in the December 2024 quarter, bringing annual growth to minus 0.5 per cent (next release: 19 June 2025).

· Auckland new dwellings consented – 13,921 for the 12 months to January 2025 (9 per cent lower than the 12 months to January 2024).

· International migration (national level) – net gain of 27,100 people for the 12 months to December 2024, comprising 155,800 arrivals and 128,700 departures (provisional estimates, subject to revision).

· City centre indicators show activity continues to be subdued, with data for February 2025 being down on February 2024 in terms of pedestrian counts (-20 per cent) and retail spending. Noting that February 2024 contained an extra (leap) day.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) whiwhi / receive the information provided in this report, in the monthly financial dashboard circulated prior to the meeting and the verbal updates by the Chief Executive and Group Chief Financial Officer.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇨	Long-term Plan (LTP) update (including CCO Transition updates)
b⇨	St James Theatre project update

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karuna Dahya - Manager Group Performance Reporting

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Phil Wilson - Chief Executive

Governing Body

27 March 2025

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board 2025-2026 Funding Plan and Levy

File No.: CP2025/04305

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide whether to approve the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding levy and remuneration for the Funding Board for the 2025-26 year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board has referred its 2025-2026 Funding Plan to council and requested that it approve the Board’s recommended levy of $18,550,654. This represents a 3.6 per cent increase ($644,904) from the previous year. The 2025 – 2026 Funding Plan is in Attachment A.

3. The recommended levy includes allocation of funding to the organisations listed in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (ARAFA) referred to as “specified amenities”. The allocation of funding is set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Allocation of Funding 2025-2026

Specified Amenity	Funding ($)
Auckland Festival Trust	4,300,000
Auckland Philharmonia Trust	4,998,000
Auckland Theatre Company Limited	2,450,000
New Zealand Opera Limited	1,305,360
Stardome - Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board	1,617,100
Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated	2,080,000
WaterSafe Auckland Inc (t/a Drowning Prevention Auckland)	1,421,444
Total Grants to Specified Amenities	18,171,904
Funding Board Administrative Budget	378,750
TOTAL LEVY PAYABLE BY AUCKLAND COUNCIL	18,550,654

4. Under ARAFA, council’s decision-making responsibility is to decide whether to approve the overall levy amount, having regard to the funding principles set out in paragraph [13]. If the council decides not to approve the recommended levy, the dispute is referred to an independent arbitrator to decide on the levy.

5. The Funding Board acknowledges that the council is focused on its finances, being economical, and doing what it can to reduce rate increases. The Funding Board states that they have been sensitive to the burden on ratepayers and have encouraged alliances amongst the specified amenities. The Funding Board has also encouraged the amenities to focus on their core business rather than expanding activities.

6. Considering council’s limited discretion under ARAFA and the legislative funding principles, staff recommend approving the levy. This recommendation is based on the information contained in the attached Funding Plan, which includes evidence from the Funding Board confirming that the levy aligns with the funding principles set out in ARAFA. Additionally, the levy is generally consistent with previous years and is within the council’s budget.

7. After consulting with the Funding Board, council is also responsible for deciding how much remuneration to pay each board member. The Funding Plan proposes an overall total remuneration increase of $9,100. Notwithstanding the excellent work of the Funding Board, and in particular, the Chair and Deputy Chair, staff recommend maintaining the current remuneration levels, consistent with those of 2024-2025. The reasons for this are provided in paragraphs [31-41].

8. The Chair of the Funding Board has requested the opportunity to attend this meeting and answer questions from the Governing Body.

9. This report provides the Governing Body an update on progress made to identify options for addressing the funding issues concerning Auckland Theatre Company (ATC) and the ASB Waterfront Theatre that were identified during the last ARAFA funding round.

10. The report also sets out information regarding the implementation of recommendations made by the Arts, Sports, Social, and Community Political Working Group (PWG) regarding comprehensive legislative changes to improve oversight and strategic alignment of the regional cultural sector.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) whakaae / approve the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board’s recommended levy of $18,550,654 for 2025-2026

b) whakaae / agree that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board’s remuneration for 2025-2026 remain the same as 2024-2025, being $221,850.

Horopaki

Context

11. In accordance with ARAFA, the Funding Board distributes grants to the following “specified amenities”:

i) Auckland Arts Festival

ii) Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra

iii) Auckland Theatre Company

iv) New Zealand Opera

v) Stardome - Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board

vi) Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated

vii) WaterSafe Auckland / Drowning Prevention Auckland

viii) The Auckland Regional Helicopter Trust are a specified amenity under ARAFA but they did not apply for funding for the financial year 2025-2026.

12. The purpose of ARAFA is to establish a mechanism that provides funding to support the ongoing sustainability of the specified amenities that deliver arts, culture, recreational, heritage, rescue services and other facilities and services to the wider population of the Auckland region.

The process to determine the levy

13. Under ARAFA, the role of the Funding Board is to:

· review applications for funding from the specified amenities and seek any supplementary information it requires

· meet with a representative of the council to confer before the draft Funding Plan is publicly notified for submissions

· consider any written and/or oral submissions and make any modifications to the Funding Plan that it deems appropriate after considering the submissions

· refer the Funding Plan to the council, seeking approval of the Funding Board’s total levy recommendation.

14. Under ARAFA council’s role is to:

· meet with a representative of the Funding Board to confer before the draft Funding Plan is publicly notified for submissions

· consider the Funding Board’s recommendation on the levy

· decide whether or not to approve the recommended levy, having regard to the funding principles in ARAFA

· approve the rates of remuneration for Funding Board members

· advise the Funding Board of its decision.

The process if the council disputes the levy set by ARAFA

15. Under ARAFA, council’s decision-making role is limited to deciding whether to approve the overall levy amount. If council does not approve the recommended levy, the dispute must be referred to an independent arbitrator to decide on the levy.

16. The Governing Body has previously expressed dissatisfaction with the council’s limited control over how funding is allocated or spent under ARAFA.

17. The Arts, Sports, Social, and Community Political Working Group (PWG) was tasked with reviewing the legislation that governs the funding of the Auckland War Memorial Museum (AWMM), the Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) and the amenities funded through ARAFA.

18. The PWG recommended changes to improve collaboration and called for the council to pursue comprehensive legislative changes to improve oversight and strategic alignment. At the end of 2024, the Governing Body endorsed these recommendations and requested staff to carry out the necessary work to give effect to the recommendations (GB/2024/131). Paragraphs [49-54] below set out more information regarding the implementation of this recommendation.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The levy request

19. The Funding Board is seeking approval of a requested levy of $18,550,654. This represents an overall increase of $644,904 (or 3.6 per cent) compared to 2024/2025.

20. The levy is made up of $18,171,904 in total grants payable to the specified amenities and $378,750 for the Funding Board’s administration budget.

21. This section analyses the requested levy, breaking it down for each specified amenity and includes historical data to give the Governing Body context for the levy request.

Funding Board Examination of Funding Requests

22. Through the Chair, the Funding Board sustains active engagement with the council to both understand the council's current operating environment and to keep the council updated on the status and activities of the specified amenities. On 25 November 2024, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Funding Board met with the Deputy Mayor to discuss the draft funding plan and proposed levy.

23. In the Funding Plan, the Funding Board acknowledge that council is focused on its finances, being economical, and doing what it can to reduce rate increases. The Funding Board states that it has been sensitive to the burden on ratepayers and has encouraged alliances amongst the specified amenities. The Funding Board has also encouraged the amenities to focus on their core business rather than expanding activities.

24. The Funding Board have examined the funding applications made by the specified amenities. The Funding Board must balance a commitment to reduce the impact on ratepayers while still adhering to the purpose of ARAFA to provide adequate, sustainable, and secure funding. In most cases, the Funding Board has decided that the provisional allocation of grants for the 2025-2026 financial year should be less than initially requested. Table 2 sets out the amount the amenities initially requested and the final amount that the Funding Board deemed appropriate.

Table 2: Funding Amount Requested and Recommended

Specified Amenity	Funding Requested by Amenity ($)	Recommended Funding ($)
Auckland Festival Trust	4,712,000	4,300,000
Auckland Philharmonia Trust	5,096,000	4,998,000
Auckland Theatre Company Limited	2,553,375	2,450,000
New Zealand Opera Limited	1,386,000	1,305,360
Stardome - Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board	1,617,000	1,617,100
Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated	2,205,000	2,080,000
WaterSafe Auckland Incorporated t/a Drowning Prevention Auckland	1,421,444	1,421,444
TOTAL	18,990,819	18,171,904

Funding Increases

25. Table 3 below sets out the recommended increase in funding for each of the specified amenities as compared to the previous year:

Table 3: Funding Increases

	Funding		Funding Increase
Specified Amenity	Actual 2024/25 ($)	Recommended 2025/26 ($)	($)	%
Auckland Festival Trust	4,187,000	4,300,000	113,000	2.70%
Auckland Philharmonia Trust	4,900,000	4,998,000	98,000	2.00%
Auckland Theatre Company Limited	2,375,000	2,450,000	75,000	3.16%
New Zealand Opera Limited	1,260,000	1,305,360	45,360	3.60%
Stardome - Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board	1,570,000	1,617,100	47,100	3.00%
Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated	1,975,000	2,080,000	105,000	5.32%
Watersafe Auckland Incorporated t/a Drowning Prevention Auckland	1,260,000	1,421,444	161,444	12.81%
Funding Board Administrative Costs	378,750	378,750	-	-
TOTAL LEVY	17,905,750	18,550,654	644,904	3.60%

26. The Funding Plan provides the following explanations for those amenities who have received a significant increase in funding percentage:

· WaterSafe Auckland Incorporated t/a Drowning Prevention Auckland +12.81% ($161,444). This increase will allow Drowning Prevention Auckland (DPA) to implement a workforce management system, along with modest salary increases to retain and attract staff. A new Aquatic educator role will grow the reach of DPA’s water education programmes into communities not currently being served.

· Auckland Festival Trust +2.7% ($113,000). This is the first increase in funding for Auckland Festival Trust since the 2022-2023 funding year. The Trust is experiencing significant inflationary pressure and significant cost increases relating to travel and other operations costs. This amenity returns the largest amount (26% of its grant) to Auckland Council through venue rents and consents.

· Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated +5.32% ($105,000). The additional funding will be utilised to sustain the services of paid lifeguards on beaches currently serviced by SLSNR.

· New Zealand Opera Limited +3.6% ($45,360). This is the first increase in funding for New Zealand Opera since the 2022-2023 funding year. NZO is experiencing significant inflationary pressure. This amenity returns 8% of its grant to Auckland Council through venue hire.

Recent History of ARAFA Funding

27. Table 4 below sets out the funding amounts received by each specified amenity over the previous three years and the recommended funding for 2025-2026.

Table 4: Recent History of ARAFA Funding

Specified Amenity	Actual 22/23 ($)	Actual 23/24 ($)	Actual 24/25 ($)	Recommended 25/26 ($)	Trend
Auckland Festival Trust	4,187,000	4,187,000	4,187,000	4,300,000
Auckland Philharmonia Trust	4,591,729	4,741,729	4,900,000	4,998,000
Auckland Theatre Company Limited	2,020,000	2,222,000	2,375,000	2,450,000
New Zealand Opera Limited	1,295,000	1,260,000	1,260,000	1,305,360
Stardome - Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board	1,488,000	1,488,000	1,570,000	1,617,100
Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated	1,390,000	1,897,450	1,975,000	2,080,000
Watersafe Auckland Incorporated t/a Drowning Prevention Auckland	1,128,750	1,178,750	1,260,000	1,421,444
FUNDING TOTAL	16,100,479	16,974,929	17,527,000	18,171,904

Indicative Levies

28. Each year, the specified amenities are required to indicate what level of funding they may seek in the subsequent two financial years (i.e., 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027 and 1 July 2027 to 30 June 2028). The total levies based on the amounts provided by the specified amenities for the subsequent two financial years are $19,882,810 and $20,753,888. These numbers are not a projection by the Funding Board itself, and the final amount is typically lower.

Specified Amenity Attendance and Outreach

Table 5 below presents the attendance and outreach numbers for each specified amenity for the financial year ending June 2024. "Core Attendance" refers to participation in the primary services offered by the amenity (e.g., concerts, shows, visitors). Additionally, these amenities offer services beyond their core offerings, which are recorded under “Outreach and Education”.

Table 5: Specified Amenity Attendance and Outreach

Organisation	Total Reach	Core Attendance	Free or low-cost attendance	Outreach and education
Auckland Festival Trust	103,600	102,000	Over 60%	1,600
Auckland Philharmonia Trust	49,308	30,000	64%	19,308
Auckland Theatre Company Limited	83,218	52,053	7%	5,904
New Zealand Opera Limited	12,011^{^[1]}	6,644	40%	5,381
Stardome - Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board	81,453	46,016	24%	31,371
Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated	Difficult to quantify total reach due to the nature of the service.	288 rescues and a further 22,351 interventions that engaged 173,475 members of the public.	n/a	18,610
WaterSafe Auckland Incorporated t/a Drowning Prevention Auckland	121,353 people reached through education programmes	33,297	97% of education is provided at no cost. The exception is workplaces.	2,933 registered eLearners. Targeted lifejacket campaign in FY24 reached 376,619 for Mar to Jun 24 and over 1.3 million for the whole campaign. Float First education and awareness campaign. IPSOS survey showed it was the most noticeable new campaign in FY24.

ARAFA Funding Grant as a Percentage of Total Income

29. Table 6 below sets out the ARAFA funding grant amounts received by each specified amenity compared to total income for the financial year ending June 2024.

Table 6: ARAFA Funding Grant as a Percentage of Total Income

Organisation	ARAFA Funding ($)	Total Income ($)	Funding as a percentage of total income
Auckland Festival Trust	4,187,000	7,953,179	53%
Auckland Philharmonia Trust	4,741,729	13,587,354	35%
Auckland Theatre Company Limited	2,222,000	10,727,534	21%
New Zealand Opera Limited	1,260,000	6,556,251	19%
Stardome - Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board	1,488,000	3,958,690	38%
Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated	1,897,450	5,165,510	37%
Watersafe Auckland Incorporated t/a Drowning Prevention Auckland	1,178,750	1,714,309	69%

Funding Returned to the Council

30. The Funding Board notes that many of the specified amenities return a significant proportion of the annual levy back to the council in the form of rent, hire charges, rates, and regulatory charges. For the 2025-2026 year, that amount is estimated to be $2,530,000 (or 14% of the total levy). This is particularly true of the Auckland Arts Festival, which expects to return 26% of its grant to the council. Despite this, the full amount provided via the levy is properly viewed as a council subsidy without any deductions for “funding returned”. This is because the provision of the services mentioned by the Funding Board incur costs to council that are recovered through charges such as rent.

Funding Board Remuneration

31. The rates of remuneration for Funding Board members for the year commencing 1 July 2025 must be approved by the council. As set out in Table 7 below, the Funding Board are proposing a total increase in remuneration of $9,100 so the total board remuneration for 2025-2026 would be $221,850.

32. In arriving at these proposed remuneration rates, the Funding Board considered the following:

· The Funding Board has, and continues to, operate in a fiscally prudent manner and strives to minimise its costs wherever possible.

· A proposed increase in board remuneration was not approved for 2024-2025.

· The proposed administrative budget 2025-2026, which incorporates the board member remuneration rates, is $35,250 lower than was forecast in the 2024-2025 Funding Plan. The proposed increase in Board member remuneration for 2025-2026 does not result in an increased administrative budget compared to 2024-2025.

Table 7: Proposed Remuneration Increase

	2024-2025 ($)	Proposed 2025-2026 ($)	Increase ($)
Chair	37,000	38,850	1,850
Deputy Chair	27,750	29,000	1,250
Members (8)	18,500	19,250	750
TOTAL	212,750	221,850	9,100

Staff Advice on the proposed board remuneration

33. Under ARAFA, council is required to determine an appropriate remuneration amount, considering both the public purpose of the Board’s functions and the extent of public funding of the Board’s operations.

34. Auckland Council’s Appointments and Remuneration Policy for Board Members of Council Organisations (the Policy) provides some guidance, although it does not apply to the Funding Board. The Policy states that board members' fees should reflect the public service element of their role and should not necessarily align with increases typically seen in the private sector.

35. Over the past eleven years, the Funding Board has received a fee increase in eight years, leading to a cumulative base rate increase of $5,500 since the 2013-2014 financial year. For comparison, during the same period, directors of substantive CCOs have seen a base rate increase of $2,860.

36. While the Funding Board has received several fee increases over the past eleven years, the scope of its responsibilities has remained largely consistent during this period. Additionally, given the current financial environment, staff believe that maintaining the current remuneration level ensures alignment with the principle of fiscal responsibility and the continued appropriate allocation of public funds.

37. The Funding Board's remuneration increase of $5,500 over the past eleven years has also generally kept pace with inflation in New Zealand during that period. Given the moderate and steady nature of the increases, staff consider that the real value of the current remuneration has remained relatively stable, ensuring it continues to reflect the Board's responsibilities without being unduly impacted by inflationary pressures.

38. Staff believe that the current remuneration of $212,750 for the Funding Board is appropriate compared to similar trust boards. For example, the total remuneration for the AWMM Board, which has the same number of members (10), is $225,000. The AWMM Board oversees an organisation with a total revenue of $54,000,000 and assets totaling $186,953,000 for the 2024 financial year.

39. Based on the analysis above, staff recommend that the Funding Board's remuneration remain unchanged for the 2024-2025 period.

40. It is important to clarify that this recommendation does not reflect the quality of the Funding Board’s performance. Staff have observed significant improvements in the relationship with the current Chair and Deputy Chair. The Chair is consistently available to respond to inquiries, and the level of transparency and accountability has notably improved, as evidenced by the Chair's insistence on attending this meeting to address any questions. This level of accountability was not evident in the past. Furthermore, the Chair and Deputy have provided valuable expertise and leadership, particularly in coordinating with Creative New Zealand to address the significant funding challenges facing ATC and the ASB Waterfront Theatre.

41. According to the Policy, council reviews CCO board remuneration on a triennial basis. Staff recommend revisiting the remuneration for the Funding Board next year to align it with this schedule.

Funding Board administration costs

42. The Funding Plan must disclose the maximum amount of the Funding Board’s reasonable administrative costs. The administrative costs cover the Board Member remuneration, Advisory Officer fees, and all other administrative costs, including software subscriptions, advertising, meeting expenses, and ancillary expenses.

43. For the 2025-2026 financial year, the proposed administrative costs are $378,750 and this is unchanged from the previous year.

Staff Advice on the recommended levy

44. The Governing Body has two options:

· accept the levy recommendation of the Funding Board

· decline the levy recommendation, in which case the matter will be referred to an arbitrator to determine the levy.

45. The council must decide whether to approve the recommended levy, having regard to the funding principles set out in section 21 of ARAFA.

46. The Funding Board has received a declaration from each specified amenity confirming that their funding application complies with the funding principles. In addition, the Funding Board’s independent auditors conduct annual sample checks to verify adherence to the Funding Principles. This includes reviewing the entire funding application and subsequent reporting processes for a specified amenity over a two-year period.

47. Given council’s limited discretion under ARAFA and taking account of the funding principles, staff recommend approving the levy. This recommendation is based on the information contained in the attached Funding Plan, which includes evidence from the Funding Board confirming that the levy aligns with the funding principles set out in ARAFA. Additionally, the levy is genuinely consistent with previous years and is within the council’s budget.

48. The below table sets out the advantages and disadvantages of approving versus not approving the levy:

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
Approve the Funding Board’s recommended levy	The funding is reasonable and consistent with previous years. It will provide financial certainty to the specified amenities and ensure the continued delivery of important arts, culture, recreational, heritage, rescue services, and other facilities and services to the wider Auckland region.	Staff have not identified any significant disadvantages in approving the recommended levy, given that the council has limited discretion under ARAFA
Not approve the Funding Board’s recommended levy	Staff have not identified any significant advantages to rejecting the recommended levy, given the limited options under the current legislative framework and the fact that arbitration will require the council to pay a levy.	Rejecting the levy would result in Arbitration, which would incur costs for both the council and the Funding Board. Rejecting the levy could also harm the relationship with the Funding Board and the specified amenities.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Approve the Funding Board’s recommended levy

The funding is reasonable and consistent with previous years. It will provide financial certainty to the specified amenities and ensure the continued delivery of important arts, culture, recreational, heritage, rescue services, and other facilities and services to the wider Auckland region.

Staff have not identified any significant disadvantages in approving the recommended levy, given that the council has limited discretion under ARAFA

Not approve the Funding Board’s recommended levy

Staff have not identified any significant advantages to rejecting the recommended levy, given the limited options under the current legislative framework and the fact that arbitration will require the council to pay a levy.

Rejecting the levy would result in Arbitration, which would incur costs for both the council and the Funding Board. Rejecting the levy could also harm the relationship with the Funding Board and the specified amenities.

Potential Law Change

49. As noted above, at the end of 2024, the Governing Body requested staff to carry out the necessary work to implement the recommendations of the PWG and prepare a proposal to amend or replace the legislation governing specific regional organisations and amenities (i.e., ARAFA, AWMM Act and the MOTAT Act).

50. In response, staff have been actively developing an alternative governance and funding structure. The proposal will be designed to improve outcomes achieved through council funding of regional cultural organisations and provide a mechanism for the council to continue to fund the regional organisations sustainably but include an appropriate degree of democratic oversight and decision-making.

51. Once the initial proposal is finalised, the next step will be to engage all relevant stakeholders, including the specified amenities, to gather their input on the structure’s design. This is expected to take place in April.

52. After collecting stakeholder feedback, staff will refine the proposal. Consultation with elected members will follow, leading to political decision-making and, if approved, the legislative process required to implement the new structure.

53. The PWG acknowledged that legislative reform would take time to progress, so they also recommended focusing on immediate improvements through collaboration and practical refinements.

54. A key method for achieving this is forming an alliance of council-funded cultural organisations and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU), focused on delivering immediate improvements. As outlined in its letter of expectation, the Governing Body has tasked TAU with leading this initiative. The Alliance has already convened and is working on several initiatives, including the establishment of shared key performance indicators, as well as efforts to achieve greater efficiencies and improved outcomes for the sector. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, shared services, better alignment of programming, and leveraging TAU’s expertise and resources.

Auckland Theatre Company/Waterfront Theatre Funding Issues

55. As part of last year's levy funding round, significant funding issues concerning Auckland Theatre Company (ATC) and the ASB Waterfront Theatre were identified. Two key issues emerged for further discussion and action:

· Waterfront Theatre Limited has an overdue $4.9 million ground lease obligation to the council.

· ATC is facing revenue shortfalls, which hinder its ability to cover the operational costs of running the venue.

56. Recognising the severity of these challenges, the Governing Body determined that a comprehensive review and a holistic solution were necessary. In response, staff were directed to collaborate with ATC and the Funding Board to identify viable options for addressing these funding issues.

57. Considerable progress has been made, and staff are actively working toward a solution. The approach being taken reflects the following principles:

· The performing arts sector, particularly ATC, holds significant cultural value for Auckland, contributing to the city’s vibrant cultural landscape. Council is fully committed to identifying options to address the issues.

· Council must ensure that ratepayer money is used effectively and efficiently. Given the finite nature of council resources, it is imperative that funding is allocated in a way that maximises outcomes. Elected members have stressed the importance of ensuring that Auckland’s theatres operate efficiently and are better coordinated as a cohesive network.

58. Based on these principles, staff are working on options to increase the revenue generated by the venue, thereby reducing the financial impact on the council. Additionally, the options aim to enhance the venue's utilisation through new avenues without undermining the rest of the council’s theatre network. Council commercial staff carefully review all available options to ensure the proposed solutions are commercially sensible and viable.

59. The current phase of the work involves consultations with ATC and key stakeholders, as well as important due diligence to protect the council group from any unforeseen issues.

60. Before any decisions are made, elected members will be consulted before being asked to decide on the preferred option. The project plan anticipates that a final decision will be made in June.

Climate impact statement

61. The Funding Board has not developed a specific Climate Plan for its operation. Over the years, the Funding Board has migrated its administrative activities online. All documents, such as agendas, minutes, and funding applications, are securely stored and transferred electronically. A previous requirement for specified amenities to submit hard-copy material was dispensed with many years ago, reducing resource consumption.

62. The Funding Board meets approximately ten times a year using shared workspaces. There remains little the Funding Board can do to further reduce its impact. Still, it is noted that the meeting rooms are close to ferry, bus and train stations in the city centre, allowing some Funding Board members to use public transport where possible to attend meetings.

63. The specified amenities have undertaken various activities to minimise their carbon footprint and environmental impact. Examples of each amenity are provided in the individual commentaries in the attached Funding Plan.

Council group impacts and views

64. Consideration of the Funding Plan and levy does not typically require the assessment of views or impacts on the council group. However, TAU are involved in the work to address ATC’s funding issues. The work considering potential law change is considering the wider cultural sector including TAU and TAU managed organisations.

Financial implications

65. The levy has been considered and analysed alongside the council’s finance staff, who have confirmed that the recommended levy for 2025/2026 is within the LTP budget provision.

Risks and mitigations

66. There are three main risks for approving the levy requests considered in this report.

67. The first key risk is that the levy will materially exceed the council budget allocations. This has been mitigated by the council working with the Funding Board to understand the council’s financial position and ensure that a reasonable levy is recommended.

68. The second risk is the possibility that the activities of the Funding Board will not meet the stated goals of the Funding Plan and that the Funding Plan does not align with council's goals. For the specified amenities, this risk is minimised because funding is required to demonstrate alignment with the Auckland Plan. However, ultimately, ARAFA does not guarantee council a role in assessing the performance of these organisations or ensuring that their activities align with the council's priorities.

69. The third risk is arbitration if the levy is not agreed upon by 30 April. This risk is mitigated by maintaining a good relationship with the Funding Board and a mutual understanding of the financial pressures.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

70. The daily operations of the Funding Board typically do not require direct involvement with Māori in its activities. However, under ARAFA, the council has appointed a director to oversee Māori interests across the Auckland region when the Funding Board engages with the specified amenities.

71. This role has significantly raised awareness among the specified amenities about the importance of Māori in the Auckland region. It has also led to the development of targeted programmes that engage with Māori or incorporate their input into the outputs and outcomes of each specified amenity.

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

Local impacts and local board views

72. The relationship with the Funding Board is of Auckland-wide relevance, and as such, decisions about funding contributions are made by the Governing Body.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

73. If the levy is approved, the Funding Board will adopt their final 2025-2026 Funding Plan by 30 April. The agreed levy will be paid by the council within the statutory timeframe.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇨	Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board 2025-2026 Funding Plan

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Chris Levet - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager CCO/External Partnerships team

Max Hardy - Director Group Strategy and Chief Executive Office

Phil Wilson - Chief Executive

Governing Body

27 March 2025

2025/2026 levy request from Museum of Transport and Technology and potential three-year funding agreement

File No.: CP2025/02077

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide whether to approve the Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) levy for the 2025-26 year and whether to approve in principle a three-year funding agreement with MOTAT subject to conditions.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Annual report and levy request

2. The Museum of Transport and Technology has referred its 2025-26 Annual Plan to council and requested that council approve its recommended levy of $19,658,362. This is an increase of 3.3 per cent ($637,208) from the previous year. MOTAT’s draft Annual Plan 2025/2026 is at Attachment A.

3. Under the Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000 (MOTAT Act), council must decide whether to approve the levy. If agreement cannot be reach on the amount of the levy, the dispute is referred to an arbitrator to decide. The levy must be set by 30 April 2025.

4. MOTAT was originally seeking a 4.3 per cent increase on their 2024/2025 levy payment, however in light of the financial pressure on council and discussions with the Deputy Mayor, TAU and council officers, this was reduced to 3.3 per cent.

5. The levy request is within the financial projection included in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 for 2025/2026.

6. Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) and council officers recommend the approval of MOTAT’s 2025/2026 levy request as it is in accordance with the provisions of the MOTAT Act. The letter of advice from TAU at Attachment B includes their recommendation that the 2025/2026 levy be approved. This was made in accordance with the Advisory and Management Agreement between TAU and council.

7. Not included in the 2025/2026 levy request but flagged in the draft Annual Plan are large unfunded capital projects MOTAT will need to undertake, such as the replacement of the 1940s-built exhibition building that runs along the front of the Great North Road site and the replacement of the front section of the Aviation Hall on landfill at Motions Road. The draft 2025/2026 Annual Plan notes MOTAT will work these issues through with TAU and council, as well as implementing a fundraising strategy for these major investments.

Proposed three-year funding agreement

8. Council and TAU consider MOTAT has long-term issues and trends to address, including static total visitation numbers and an increasing dependence on the levy from council as a significant percentage of its total revenue (noting MOTAT has not increased its admission charges). For 2025/2026 approximately 87 per cent of MOTAT’s total revenue is budgeted to come from the levy. These long-term trends cannot be easily addressed through annual levy rounds and require the MOTAT board to adopt several short- and long-term actions to address them.

9. Council and TAU staff suggest council seek to enter into a three-year funding agreement starting in 2025/2026. This would enable council to put in place conditions that would address its concerns (as set out in this report), in return for providing MOTAT with greater funding certainty. The agreement would be substantially similar to the three-year funding agreement between council and Auckland War Memorial Museum.

10. If approved, the 2025/2026 levy will form the year one funding amount of the proposed three-year funding agreement between council and MOTAT, with funding amounts for the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 financial years to not exceed the amounts provided for in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

11. Adopting a three-year funding approach might enable more effective progress on the other MOTAT-specific recommendations of the Arts, Sports, Social and Community Political Working Group, better engagement with MOTAT’s strategy and direction, visibility of its action plans to address long-term visitation and levy dependence trends and enhanced performance reporting, while providing greater financial certainty to enable MOTAT to plan and budget more effectively. Taking a multi-year approach will enable improvements to be planned, tracked and evaluated.

12. If council approves in principle entering into a three-year funding agreement with MOTAT (reflecting the terms and conditions set out in this report), staff will negotiate the details of the final three-year agreement with MOTAT, to be concluded no later than 30 June 2025. Council staff propose granting the Mayor and Deputy Mayor a delegation to approve and sign the final version of the agreement. If council and MOTAT cannot reach an agreement, the annual levy approval process will continue to apply.

13. Council has invited MOTAT representatives to attend this meeting and answer questions from the Governing Body.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) whakaae / approve the Museum of Transport and Technology’s levy request for 2025/2026 of $19,658,362.

b) whakaae / approve in principle council entering into a three-year funding agreement with the Museum of Transport and Technology for 2025/2026 to 2027/2028, reflecting the terms and conditions set out in paragraph 37 of this report, subject to final approval by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

c) tuhi tīpoka / note that if approved, the 2025/2026 levy will form the year one funding amount of a proposed three-year funding agreement between council and Museum of Transport and Technology, with funding amounts for the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 financial years to not exceed the amounts provided for in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

d) taupata / delegate to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor the authority to approve and sign the final version of the agreement.

e) tuhi tīpoka / note that if a three-year funding agreement between the council and the Museum of Technology and Transport for 2025/2026 to 2027/2028 cannot be reached, the annual levy approval process will continue to apply.

Horopaki

Context

Levy process

14. Under the MOTAT Act 2000, MOTAT must prepare and publicly consult on their draft annual plan and proposed levy. Diagram 1 below sets out the levy process timeframe, which precedes council’s budget consultation and decisions by some months (see diagram 1).

15. For 2025/2026 MOTAT received three public submissions on its draft Annual Plan.

Diagram 1: Indicative levy process timeline MOTAT

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Table 1 below illustrates the previous ten years levy payments, the proposed 2025/2026 levy request and indicative amounts for the following two financial years, based on the 2025/2026 draft Annual Plan for MOTAT. Total visitation numbers (from MOTAT Annual Reports) are also included. This information is illustrated graphically in diagram 2 below.

Table 1: Agreed, proposed and indicative levies 2015/2023 to 2027/2028

Year	MOTAT levy	$ increase from previous year	Total visitors *(MOTAT Annual Report data)*	Levy per visitor
2015/16	$ 12,287,000	Not available	248,668	$50
2016/17	$ 13,100,000	$ 813,000	262,943	$54
2017/18	$ 15,222,110	$ 2,122,110	283,577	$54
2018/19	$ 13,973,339	-$ 1,248,771	260,211	$77
2019/20	$ 15,811,739	$ 1,838,400	205,842	$56
2020/21	$ 14,890,578	-$ 921,161	265,761	$155
2021/22	$ 15,635,107	$ 744,529	100,554	$80
2022/23	$ 18,607,810	$ 2,972,703	232,144	$74
2023/24	$ 18,527,250	-$ 80,560	248,889	$50
2024/25	$ 19,021,154	$ 493,904	256,402 (indicative target)	$74 (Indicative)
*2025/26 (proposed)*	$ 19,658,362	$ 637,208	272,000 (indicative target)	$72 (indicative target)
*2026/27 (indicative)*	$ 20,491,924	$ 833,562	280,000 (indicative target)	$73 (indicative target)
*2027/28 (indicative)*	$ 21,160,581	$ 668,657	289,000 (indicative target)	$73 (indicative target)

Diagram 2: MOTAT levy and total visitation 2015/2016 to 2024/2025

17. For completeness, MOTAT have also provided the below graph (diagram 3) which illustrates an upward trend for admissions revenue over a ten-year period, during which MOTAT advises they have not adjusted their pricing. This reflects an increase in visitors paying admission versus events where admission is complimentary.

18. MOTAT advises that further work on how it can derive revenue (including through its partnership with TAU for private events), pricing, and increasing revenue from visitation is planned for the 2025/2026 financial year.

Diagram 3: MOTAT Levy and Admissions Revenue 2015/2016 to 2024/2025

Levy request

19. The total levy amount proposed by MOTAT for the financial year 2025/2026 is $19,658,362, which is an increase of $637,208 or 3.3 per cent, compared to the levy payment in 2024/2025. Approximately 87 per cent of MOTAT’s total revenue is budgeted to come from the 2025/2026 levy. This has steadily grown since 2018/2019, as diagram 4 below illustrates.

Diagram 4: MOTAT levy as component of total revenue 2018/2019 to 2025/2026

20. MOTAT was originally seeking a 4.3 per cent increase on their 2024/2025 levy payment but considering the financial pressure on the council and discussions with the Deputy Mayor, TAU and council officers, this was reduced to 3.3 per cent.

21. MOTAT typically comes to the council (through the levy process) for specific project funding when required. The components of the proposed 2025/2026 levy are:

i) a base operational portion of the levy of $17,759,962

ii) $1,898,400 to cover additional operating and capital requirements, including:

A) Repayment of loan for Approach 2 projects - $1,000,000 (see below)

B) ICT infrastructure, Asset Management Plan and Equipment renewals $648,400

C) Tramline renewal and upgrade - $250,000 (towards phase two of the project, which focusses on the passing loop on the corner of Great North Road and Motions Road).

22. Not included in the 2025/2026 levy request but flagged in the draft Annual Plan are large unfunded capital projects MOTAT will need to undertake, such as the replacement of the 1940s-built exhibition building that runs along the front of the Great North Road site and the replacement of the front section of the Aviation Hall on landfill at Motions Road. The draft 2025/2026 Annual Plan notes MOTAT will work these issues through with TAU and council, as well as implementing a fundraising strategy for these major investments.

23. The levy request is within the financial projection included in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) for 2025/2026. While the request can be accommodated within the budget provision set in the LTP, it is important to note that once approved by the Governing Body, there will be no opportunity to modify the levy amount if further cost reductions are required to address budget pressures through the final stage of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 process.

24. Under the Advisory and Management Agreement between TAU and the council, TAU are asked to recommend to the council whether to approve or reject the levy requested by MOTAT. Attachment B is TAU’s letter recommending that the council accept MOTAT’s 2025/2026 levy request.

Approach 2 projects

25. In 2019, Regional Facilities Auckland (now TAU) collaborated with council and MOTAT to devise a pragmatic and measured approach via the levy process to assist MOTAT in addressing specific issues (identified as the Approach 2 projects in the Museum’s Annual Plans and Annual Reports).

26. Under this approach, MOTAT was to be supported by a borrowing regime that would not affect the council’s credit rating or borrowings. This arrangement involved ring fencing $1,000,000 of the levy per annum for 10 years starting in 2019/2020 so that MOTAT could borrow circa $12.5 million from its bank, under highly favourable terms, to undertake and complete the Approach 2 projects^{^[2]}.

27. This arrangement was effectively put on hold when MOTAT agreed to reduce its levy request to assist the council with its 2020/2021 Emergency Budget. To progress its core projects, MOTAT sought to reinstate this in the 2022/2023 Annual Plan, which was agreed by the Governing Body (GB/2022/29).

28. The borrowing associated with completing the Approach 2 projects is projected to total $10 million by the end of this financial year against a total capital investment of $14.4 million. MOTAT plans to begin repayments in 2025/2026, with full repayment forecast by 2033/2034 based on current projections. Earlier repayment remains possible should MOTAT’s non-levy revenue improve over the coming years.

29. Council’s commitment under this arrangement remains $1 million per annum for 10 years, ending in 2030/31, consistent with the original agreement. Council staff and TAU will continue to monitor MOTAT’s repayment progress and assess any impact on future levy requests through subsequent levy processes.

Long-term issues and funding

30. On 26 September 2024, the Governing Body endorsed recommendations from the Arts, Social, Sports and Community Political Working Group, chaired by the Deputy Mayor. (GB/2024/131).

31. The MOTAT-specific recommendations were:

h) The PWG consider that MOTAT is uniquely placed to benefit from closer alignment with TAU. The TAU Board should engage with the MOTAT Board on the following:

i) Explore MOTAT’s legislative purposes, current opportunities, challenges, capital needs and MOTAT’s strategic capital investment plan and how it might fit in with plans for Auckland Zoo and Western Springs Precinct.

ii) Recommend to Council the appointment of an appropriate person(s) to the MOTAT board who can facilitate stronger alignment between the two organisations.

iii) Explore the best arrangements for MOTAT to ensure MOTAT’s long-term sustainability.

iv) Following completion of i)-iii) above, consider whether to recommend to council a three-year funding agreement with MOTAT in lieu of the annual levy process.

Progressing the MOTAT-specific recommendations

32. In line with recommendation h) ii), council appointed Alastair Carruthers (current TAU director) to the MOTAT board in October 2024^{^[3]}. The MOTAT board has also appointed a new Chair (Amit Prasad), who came into the role in November 2024. Craig Hickman-Goodall was also appointed by the MOTAT board as the new Museum Director/Chief Executive Officer in July 2024.

33. Council and TAU staff propose departing from the sequencing of recommendation h) iv) and proceed to entering into a three-year funding agreement with MOTAT in lieu of the annual levy process (reflecting terms and conditions set out below), to more effectively progress recommendations h)i) and h)iii).

34. Furthermore, as illustrated by the data in diagrams two and four, council and TAU staff consider MOTAT has long-term trends to address around static total visitation numbers and increasing dependence on the levy as a percentage of its total revenue. These long-term trends cannot be addressed through annual levy rounds, and the MOTAT board is required to undertake a number of short- and long-term measures to address these trends.

35. The proposed funding agreement between the council and MOTAT would follow a format substantially similar to the three-year funding agreement agreed upon between council and the Auckland War Memorial Museum in March 2024 (GB/2024/22). This would enable the council and TAU to better engage with MOTAT’s strategy and direction, greater visibility of its action plans to address long-term visitation and levy dependence trends and provide for enhanced performance reporting. Taking a multi-year approach will enable improvements to be planned, tracked and evaluated.

36. MOTAT will also need to satisfy itself that entering into any three-year funding agreement with the council in lieu of the annual levy process will be consistent with their obligations under the MOTAT Act 2000.

Terms and conditions

37. It is proposed that any long-term funding agreement with MOTAT is subject to the following conditions:

i. Agreement between council and MOTAT on the funding amounts for year 2 (2026/2027) and year 3 (2027/2028) of the agreement, which must not exceed 2024-2034 Long-term Plan budget provisions. It is proposed that the 2025/2026 levy request, if approved, would be the year 1 funding amount of any agreement.

ii. The inclusion of clauses in the agreement requiring MOTAT to:

a) Deliver to council detailed 12-monthly action plans for:

1. increasing total visitation (with specific targets to be agreed with MOTAT)

2. increasing non-levy revenue sources (with specific targets to be agreed with MOTAT)

3. addressing long-term asset management needs

and 6 monthly reports to council on the progress with those action plans.

b) Attend Governing Body meetings each year to report on its annual performance

c) Complete a board performance review with an independent external reviewer (and biennially thereafter) to inform board recruitment and succession planning and providing council with a copy of the final board performance review report.

d) Engage regularly with council in a strategic discussion about its long-term future direction as an institution, including consideration of governance arrangements and the MOTAT legislation

e) Continue to engage with the alliance of council funded cultural organisations which is working to progress and agreed shared key performance indicators, as well work to achieve efficiencies and improved outcomes for the sector through such things as (but not limited to) shared services and better alignment on programming, and leveraging TAU’s expertise and resources.

iii. The inclusion of clauses in the agreement:

a) requiring the parties to review the funding amounts in the agreement if either party suffers material financial hardship, or if there is a local or national state of emergency.

b) allowing the agreement to be terminated if the MOTAT Act 2000 is amended or repealed.

c) enabling council to amend the year 3 funding amount of the agreement to allow for any necessary adjustments in alignment with council’s updated financial strategy and settings (which will be reviewed a part of the next Long-term Plan 2027-2037 process).

iv. Agreement on final terms and conditions (including legal review and sign off by council and MOTAT board)

Benefits and risks

38. Some of the benefits of a funding agreement approach compared to the annual levy process include:

· A reduction in the significant time invested in working on the annual levy process, reviewing documents, analysing financial information, in meetings, negotiating and writing reports

· Better engagement with MOTAT’s plans, strategy and general direction – each year the funding negotiation dominates discussions and distracts from the direction of MOTAT. Removing the funding element frees up the parties to focus on the outcomes of MOTAT.

· Improved financial certainty – MOTAT can only plan one year at a time and the annual levy is disconnected from council’s budget process and decisions.

39. Similar to the AWMM funding agreement, any funding agreement with MOTAT will seek to mitigate the risks via the terms and conditions (outlined above). Any risks need to be compared to the status quo annual levy process and weighed against the benefits.

Climate impact statement

40. MOTAT is a statutorily independent organisation, and council is unable to direct it on climate issues. However, MOTAT is a member of the Sustainable Business Network and has a Toitū Carbon Reduce certification, which includes an annual audit.

41. MOTAT’s draft annual plan notes it has taken significant steps to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions in recent years, and it continues to be an area of focus. The 2025/2026 budget includes funds for the ongoing installation of more energy-efficient lighting, and MOTAT is exploring investing in solar panels. After initial trials in 2023 of a biofuel alternative for the coal-powered heritage engines, MOTAT remains committed to identifying a viable ongoing fuel source for these engines.

Council group impacts and views

42. On 26 September 2024, the Governing Body endorsed recommendations from the Arts, Social, Sports and Community Political Working Group, chaired by the Deputy Mayor. (GB/2024/131).

43. This included a two-track approach, with track one focusing on an alliance of cultural funded organisations and TAU, to collaborate with each other and progress shared key performance indicators, as well as efficiencies and improved outcomes for the sector through shared services, better alignment on programming, telling a cohesive Auckland story, exploring a shared “Auckland pass” and leveraging TAU’s expertise and resources.

Financial implications

44. The analysis in this report was undertaken with finance staff. Their advice is incorporated at the beginning of the analysis and advice section so that it is read together with the main part of the advice on the levy.

Risks and mitigations

45. There are three main risks associated with approving the levy request considered in this report.

46. The first key risk is the levy materially exceeding council budget allocations. This has been mitigated by the council and TAU staff working with the entities to communicate the council’s financial challenges. MOTAT has operated transparently with council and TAU about the budget pressures it faces.

47. The second key risk is the possibility that the activities of MOTAT will not meet the stated goals of its annual plan and that its annual plan does not align with council goals. MOTAT works with TAU to ensure its long-term goals are aligned with those of the council. However, ultimately, the legislative scheme for MOTAT does not guarantee council any role in assessing the performance of the organisation or ensuring that their activities align with the council’s priorities.

48. There is a risk of going to arbitration if the levy is not agreed by 30 April. This risk is mitigated by maintaining a good relationship with MOTAT and a mutual understanding of the financial pressures.

49. The risks of entering into any three-year funding agreement with MOTAT are outlined earlier in the report. MOTAT has operated transparently with council and TAU about the pressures it faces.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50. MOTAT’s draft 2025/2026 Annual Plan contains their strategic framework with five objectives and associated actions.

51. Under Objective 2: Empower the MOTAT team, actions include “Keep embracing te ao Māori me ōna tikanga and promote diversity.” The draft 2025/2026 Annual Plan notes that “As MOTAT continues to build more exhibitions, programmes and partnerships that embrace te ao Māori, supporting the team to develop their understanding of te ao Māori me ōna tikanga is critical to doing this well.

52. Under Objective 5: Engage with like-minded institutions. Actions include “Grow relationships and partnerships, in particular those that embrace te ao Māori.” The draft 2025/2026 Annual Plan notes that “Te Puna Whāngai Māori will continue to provide a framework to build understanding, create opportunity, and seek meaningful connection with te ao Māori and Māori-led organisations, advisors and knowledge holders. Through close collaboration with our partners, we will continue in our efforts to ensure that every visitor feels the manaaki of a truly inclusive environment - one where Māori culture thrives in our exhibitions and spaces, is celebrated, and is increasingly present in both the physical and digital experiences the Museum offers.”

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

Local impacts and local board views

53. The relationship with MOTAT is of Auckland-wide relevance, and as such, decisions about funding contributions are made by the Governing Body or its committees.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. If the 2025/2026 levy request is agreed upon, the MOTAT Board will adopt their final 2025/2026 Annual Plan, and the agreed levy will be paid within the appropriate statutory timeframe.

55. If council approves, in principle, entering into a three-year funding agreement with MOTAT (reflecting the terms and conditions set out in this report), staff will negotiate the details of the final agreement with MOTAT (to be concluded no later than 30 June 2025) and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will approve and sign the final version of the agreement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇨	MOTAT 2025/2026 draft Annual Plan
b⇨	Letter of recommendation from Tataki Auckland Unlimited - MOTAT 2025/2026 levy request

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Johnstone-Smith - Principal Advisor

Tracy Xu - Principal Advisor CCO Financial Planning

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager CCO/External Partnerships team

Max Hardy - Director Group Strategy and Chief Executive Office

Phil Wilson - Chief Executive

Governing Body

27 March 2025

Level Crossing programme – Accelerating the removal of the Takaanini and Glen Innes priority group

File No.: CP2025/04663

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To accelerate the delivery of the level crossing removal programme for Takaanini and Glen Innes by bringing forward budget allocated in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. An existing programme of rail level crossing removals is well under way and enables the operation of the City Rail Link (CRL) Day 1 timetable.

3. A post CRL programme investment case for level crossing removals has been developed which prioritises the Takaanini and Glen Innes level crossings group to be delivered next. The Auckland Transport (AT) Board approved the investment case for the Takaanini and Glen Innes group in February 2025.

4. The scope of the Takaanini and Glen Innes crossings includes eight new bridges - three road bridges, two pedestrian bridges (maintaining existing street connections) and three new station platform access bridges (Attachment A).

5. The eight new bridges will remove all level crossings from the inner Southern (Papakura north) and Eastern Rail Lines improving safety and delivering operational efficiencies for road and rail users.

6. The Auckland Council group Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) included capital expenditure of $550 million for Takaanini level crossings, with the bulk of the spend planned from 2028/2029.

7. The council group has the opportunity to bring forward this capital budget to commence the project next year (2025/2026) to address congestion and safety impacts of level crossings at Takaanini and Glen Innes earlier.

8. The LTP assumed that the programme would be 51 per cent co-funded by New Zealand Transport Agency / Waka Kotahi (NZTA).

9. In February 2025, the Minister of Transport announced that the Government will allocate up to $200 million for its share of funding to accelerate removal of the level crossings in Takanini and Glen Innes. The allocation of funding is subject to approval by the NZTA board, which is expected at the beginning of April. We expect that a condition of the NZTA funding approval will be confirmation that Auckland Council budget will also be brought forward.

10. Bringing forward the programme will also bring forward the associated operating costs and require additional council operational funding from the 2025/2026 year (approximately $2 million), increasing to peak at around $16 million in 2028/2029, before reducing.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) whakaae / approve the acceleration of the programme to remove level crossings at Takaanini and Glen Innes, and bring forward the $550 million of capital budget included in the long-term plan to commence in 2025/2026

b) tuhi tīpoka / note that clause a) is subject to New Zealand Transport Agency approving the first $200 million of co-funding announced by central government at their April 2025 board meeting

c) tuhi tīpoka / note this bring forward will increase debt requirements, peaking at $196 million in 2027/2028 before reducing in later years

d) tuhi tīpoka / note that the flow-on operating costs will require a funding solution

e) tono / request Auckland Transport to consider options to mitigate the flow-on operating costs, and that these are presented to the Budget Committee through the annual plan process

Horopaki

Context

11. Removal of rail level crossings from the network builds on existing infrastructure and operational improvements to provide for a safer, more efficient and higher capacity road and rail network.

12. A CRL Day 1 level crossing removal programme to enable the Day 1 timetable to operate as intended is already in progress with the required closures to be completed by the time CRL starts operating. Five pedestrian level crossing have been closed and the remaining crossing at Church Street East will be completed by late 2025 in parallel with minor safety improvements at other crossings.

13. Additional level crossing removals are a key part of the long-term strategic investment plan for the Auckland rail network. This was recently confirmed by the Auckland Rail Programme Business Case (PBC) that was jointly developed and endorsed by AT and KiwiRail in 2023, noted by the Auckland Council Transport and Infrastructure Committee in late 2023, and noted by the NZTA Board in 2024.

14. The Takaanini and Glen Innes level crossings have been identified as the highest priority crossings to be addressed post CRL Day 1 to reduce traffic congestion and allow for additional passenger and freight trains to be run.

15. The scope of the Takaanini and Glen Innes crossings includes eight new bridges - three road bridges, two pedestrian bridges (maintaining existing street connections) and three new station platform access bridges (Attachment A).

16. The eight new bridges will remove all level crossings from the inner Southern (Papakura north) and Eastern Rail Lines improving safety and delivering operational efficiencies for road and rail users.

17. The AT Board approved the investment case for the Takaanini and Glen Innes group in February 2025.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Proposed road bridges to replace level crossings at Takaanini

18. On the North Island Main Trunk Line (Southern), train paths north of Papakura will increase from the current 16 trains per hour (tph) during the peak hour to 20 tph when CRL opens and then to 24 tph by 2036. Train paths south of Papakura will be maintained at 16 tph for some time until KiwiRail completes ‘4 tracking’.

19. The road network in Takaanini is already congested. When the CRL Day 1 timetable begins operation, additional train paths will see traffic queues extending back onto Great South Road at Manuroa Road and Walters Road during the afternoon peak times. The barrier down time will increase delays on the Great South Road corridor by approximately 2.5 minutes in the peak hour.

20. The AT team are developing optimisation strategies to manage travel times through the crossings and along the Great South Road corridor immediately after CRL opens. Measures being developed as part of a comprehensive traffic management plan for the area including signal management, lane reallocations, and if required, techniques to meter the roundabouts on Walters Road.

21. However, without investment in the Takaanini crossings, traffic and trains frequencies will continue to increase over time leading to considerable negative impacts on traffic. Up to seven minutes of additional delay in the peak hour, and significant traffic queues on Great South Road could be expected when 24 tph are required (circa 2031 - 2036). The Takaanini group of crossings already experience a higher-than-average incident rate at the barriers resulting from risk taking and driver behaviour. If delays are allowed to increase significantly this will become worse. The freight community have raised concerns about the operational and economic impacts of increasing delays at Takaanini.

22. Construction of the proposed road bridges over the rail line in Takaanini will remove the conflict between traffic and trains reducing congestion and improving safety and rail operations.

Proposed station platform access bridges to replace pedestrian level crossings at Takaanini, Te Mahia and Glen Innes

23. Glen Innes station is the only remaining level crossing on the Eastern Line. CRL will double the number of services on the Eastern Line from 12 tph in the peak hour to 24 tph in 2026. The number of people using the station to access the rail network is forecast to increase significantly.

24. Patronage at the Takaanini and Te Mahia stations is also forecast to significantly increase.

25. The proposed station access bridges will remove the conflict between pedestrians and trains at these stations eliminating the safety risk.

Opportunity to accelerate the delivery of the Takaanini and Glen Innes crossings

26. Under the current LTP funding allocations, the Takaanini and Glen Innes crossings would not be completed until beyond 2037.

27. There is an opportunity to bring funding forward budget to accelerate delivery of the level crossings in Takaanini and Glen Innes. The road bridges can be completed five years earlier (by 2032). Station access bridges can be completed in 2026.

28. Delivery of the road crossings ahead of additional trains being required in the 2030s means that the worst of the traffic congestion through Takaanini is avoided. Safety will be improved alongside improvements in rail reliability.

29. The safety risks for pedestrians accessing the rail stations will be eliminated by 2026.

Opportunity to utilise pre CRL Day 1 block of lines

30. The acceleration of delivery at Takaanini and Glen Innes maximises the use of existing pre-CRL block of lines, reducing the impacts on rail operations and road traffic after CRL opens.

31. The scheduled extended line closures to complete the Rail Network Rebuild programme before CRL opens create an opportunity to undertake construction works now that would otherwise cause further disruption in the future.

32. The most disruptive construction activities for the station bridges can be completed alongside enabling works for the road bridges, while the extended blocks of line enable faster and more efficient construction

Climate impact statement

33. Emissions, adaptation and environment measures for the project align with the 2023 Takanini Level Crossings Route Protection and Detailed Business Case evidence that was utilised at the Notice of Requirement hearings.

34. At the detailed design stage, the project will align with the AT Climate Change Technical Policy and identify opportunities to use low-carbon construction techniques and low-carbon concrete to reduce embodied emissions. However, there is a risk of misalignment between AT and NZTA on climate resilience, mitigation and adaptation measures.

35. Modelling to estimate embodied and avoided emissions, and the emissions payback period, will be undertaken at the detailed design stage

Council group impacts and views

36. Significant engagement has occurred across the Council group during the designation process for the Takaanini level crossings. Continued engagement will occur through the design processes.

Financial implications

37. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) included capital expenditure of $550 million for Takaanini level crossings, with the bulk of the spend planned from 2028/2029.

38. The council group has the opportunity to bring forward this capital budget to commence the project next year (2025/2026).

39. The table below outlines the projected impact on capital expenditure, funding shares, debt and the operating budget over the period of the LTP, based on the best information currently available.

($million)	FY25	FY26	FY27	FY28	FY29	FY30	FY31	FY32	FY33	FY34
LTP Capital budget	1	2	11	38	147	134	131	68	18	0
Proposed acceleration	1	165	160	125	75	25	0	0	0	0
Change in capital expenditure	0	163	149	88	(72)	(109)	(131)	(68)	(18)	0
Additional NZTA funding	0	83	76	45	(37)	(56)	(67)	(34)	(9)	0
Additional AC funding	0	80	73	43	(35)	(53)	(34)	(34)	(9)	0
Cumulative AC debt impact	0	80	153	196	160	107	43	9	0	0

Additional AC operating funding required	0	2	8	14	16	13	8	3	1	0

40. The assumption is that this investment will be co-funded, with NZTA providing 51 per cent and Auckland Council 49 percent.

41. NZTA will consider approval of the first $200 million central government funding allocation at its Board meeting in April 2025. We expect that a condition of the NZTA funding approval will be confirmation that Auckland Council budget will also be brought forward.

42. The council share will be funded from additional borrowing, projected to peak at $196 million of extra debt at the end of the 2027/2028 before reducing.

43. The accelerated investment will also bring forward associated operating costs including interest on the borrowing, depreciation of the new assets, and operations and maintenance costs. It is estimated that the additional council operating funding required will be $2 million in 2025/2026, increasing to peak at around $16 million in 2028/2029, before reducing.

44. The additional operating funding will require a funding solution to be addressed through the Annual Plan 2025/2026 process. Auckland Transport will consider options to mitigate this

Risks and mitigations

Risk	Trigger	Mitigation
Government Funding	That assumed co-funding of 51 per cent is not approved	$200 million of funding announced by Minister. Working with NZTA and Government to confirm funding allocation to be approved at the NZTA April Board meeting.
Additional funding required	The remainder of the funding to complete the works in Takaanini and Glen Innes and commence works on the Western Line will be addressed through business-as-usual funding arrangements.	Remainder of funding to be sought through 2027 National Land Transport Programme and LTP processes.
Cost variations	P50 detailed business case costings used to inform funding allocation. Cost or scope changes through the detailed design and delivery of the project. Detailed design and value engineering is still to occur alongside minimising land take requirements, community engagement and consent approvals.	Comprehensive value engineering and cost management approach throughout project. Regular affordability checks through the procurement and delivery process. Construction contracts will only be awarded if within the affordability envelope.
Property purchase	Designation appeals and unwilling participants delay land purchase	A property strategy is in place with mitigation strategies to manage the correlation of land purchase and construction delivery
Rail disruption post CRL	Construction activities create additional block of line requirements	Procurement approach mitigates risk. Working with KiwiRail to identify optimisation of existing block of lines to bring forward construction activities.
Traffic congestion	Additional train paths and barrier down times increase traffic congestion on key arterial routes during delivery	Traffic management and optimisation plans developed to manage traffic effects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45. Through the designation process for the Takaanini level crossings, Iwi participated in dedicated project Hui’s through the Auckland Transport tables. This led to a suite of Iwi based conditions being incorporated and accepted through the designation process.

46. The station platform bridges have been presented through the AT Hui tables. Engagement will continue as the proposed bridges progress through the next design phases.

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

Local impacts and local board views

47. Public consultation including with the Papakura Local Board has been undertaken on the Takaanini Road crossings from 2018 to 2024 as part of the designation process. This resulted in a designation being confirmed and conditions approved by AT in December 2024.

48. Engagement with the local boards regarding the three train station platform bridges has been positive. All three local boards have expressed their desire to participate in the detailed design and delivery stages of the project.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49. Confirm a solution for the additional operating funding required, through the Annual Plan process.

50. Progress procurement of design, property and construction.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Takanini and Glen Innes level crossing bridges

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Bell – Acting General Manager Rail Delivery and transport Investment (Auckland Transport)

Pramod Nair – General Manager Finance (Auckland Transport)

Murray Burt – Director Infrastructure and Place (Auckland Transport)

Michael Burns - General Manager Financial Strategy

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Resilience and Infrastructure

Ross Tucker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Phil Wilson - Chief Executive

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Additional assurance regarding the improvements in council’s management of health and safety

Governing Body

27 March 2025

Stadium network investment objectives

File No.: CP2025/05028

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a set of stadium network investment objectives to guide future planning and advice on Auckland’s stadium network, including the development of a stadium network investment plan to inform the Long-term Plan 2027–2037.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Addressing a gap in strategic direction

2. Auckland’s stadium network is an important asset to the region that delivers broad public benefits and relies on significant ongoing public investment.

3. Council currently lacks an agreed strategic framework to guide its planning and investment in the network. This has been recognised as a priority gap given:

· Several important upcoming decisions about the stadium network.

· Governing Body’s recent direction as part of CCO reform that council prioritise setting strategic direction for CCOs, where gaps exist (GB/2024/179).

· The significant investment required to maintain the network, ongoing challenges faced in optimising the outcomes from the network and the likelihood that further significant decisions will need to be made as part of the next Long-term Plan 2027–2037.

4. As a first step, council has developed a set of stadium network investment objectives to guide council and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited in further planning and advice to Governing Body (Attachment A). This initial work is based on good practice (including a review of international examples), stakeholder feedback, guidance from elected members, and existing strategies and plans.

5. The objectives are intended to guide the development of a more detailed stadium network investment plan to inform Governing Body decisions required as part the LTP. An indicative work programme is set out under “Next Steps”.

Proposed investment objectives

6. The proposed investment objectives focus on Auckland’s four large regional outdoor stadiums: Eden Park, Go Media Stadium (Mt Smart), North Harbour Stadium, and Western Springs Stadium. However, these are not standalone assets. The proposed objectives take account of the fact that stadiums are part of a much larger interdependent network of venues and operate within a broader event ecosystem.

7. The investment objectives include:

· Public value outcomes council seeks to maximise from public funding. These emphasise community cohesion, economic opportunity, a vibrant city & culture, and healthy & active communities. Auckland’s contribution to national outcomes is also noted as important and something that justifies government contribution.

· Investment priorities council will focus on. These are to: get the most of our infrastructure; support a complementary network of multi-use facilities; promote integrated and sustainable precincts; and improve financial sustainability.

· Investment and stewardship principles that guide council will govern and manage its investment decisions. These are to: act regionally (based on what is best for Auckland); understand demand and community views; understand & manage costs through good asset management; invest smartly & responsibly; and provide strategic leadership.

8. The objectives have been informed by council’s existing plans and strategies, including the Long-term Plan 2024–2034 and Auckland Plan 2050.

9. Taken together, the investment objectives are intended to support council to plan for a fit-for-purpose stadium network that delivers public value, supports thriving communities, and is financially and operationally sustainable.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) whai / adopt the stadium network investment objectives in Attachment A, to guide future planning and advice on Auckland’s stadium network

b) tuhi tīpoka / note the indicative work programme for council to develop a stadium network investment plan to inform the Long-Term Plan 2027–2037.

Horopaki

Context

Stadium network comprises four large stadiums, which are part of a larger interdependent network of venues and event ecosystem

10. Auckland’s stadium network is a critical part of the region’s sports, entertainment, and community infrastructure. The network is currently made up of four venues:

· Eden Park, which is owned and operated independently by the Eden Park Trust Board.

· Go Media Stadium (Mt Smart), North Harbour Stadium, and Western Springs Stadium, which are owned and managed by Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.

11. Each stadium has its own unique and rich history in hosting events. They each represent significant investments by past generations and hold cultural and historical value for local communities. An assessment of the current state of the network is included as Attachment D to the report on “Main stadium feasibility studies” on this agenda.

12. The stadium assets are part of a much larger interdependent network of venues, which include significant “sub-regional” outdoor stadiums and parks (e.g. Navigation Homes Stadium, Manukau Sports Bowl); indoor arenas (e.g. Spark Arena, Trusts Arena); large outdoor public spaces (e.g. Auckland Domain, Wynyard Point); local and regional community sports facilities; and public venues, spaces, events centres and theatres.

13. Venues are an important part of the broader sport and event ecosystem that includes venue managers, venue hirers, professional clubs, sporting bodies, high-performance sports facilities, event promoters, patrons (or consumers), event attraction, and destination marketing. Generally, for venues to be financially sustainable they need to have enough content to generate a return through staging events and associated activity such as catering, ticketing and merchandise.

14. The design and operation of stadiums must also adapt to changing preferences from patrons, event promoters, and athletes. This includes the growth of women’s sport.

Need for stadium investment objectives

15. Council currently lacks an agreed strategic framework to guide its planning and investment in the network. This has been recognised as a priority gap, noting the following.

Several important upcoming decisions about the stadium network.

16. Council is expected to make several important decisions about the stadium network in the coming months. This includes decisions on the “main stadium” process, as well as decisions on options for North Harbour Stadium and Western Springs Stadium.

17. These decisions will impact the future network and will need to be incorporated into future planning. An initial set of objectives will assist in staff providing advice on these decisions.

Governing Body direction to strengthen strategic direction

18. As part of its decisions on CCO reform, the Governing Body directed that council prioritise setting strategic direction for CCOs, where gaps exist (GB/2024/179). This was part of a set of changes to strengthen the CCO model, including the council’s ability to set clear direction and exercise appropriate oversight in relation to CCO activities.

19. Staff advice on CCO reform had highlighted the absence of a clear strategic objectives and principles for stadium investment. This reinforced findings of the 2020 Independent CCO Review which noted that: “There can be no doubt a stadium strategy is essential to understanding Auckland’s future needs for venues, the costs of providing for those needs and how those assets might be managed.”

Significant investment needed to maintain network, ongoing challenges and likelihood significant decisions required in future

20. The Long-term Plan 2024–2034 plans for council to invest $146.3 million in operating and maintaining the council-owned network over 10 years ($111.5 million for capital expenditure, $34.8 million for operating expenditure). This is based on minimum requirements to maintain the network. The Long-term Plan 2024- 2034 notes that Auckland faces substantial costs in the future, and that current operating models may inhibit optimal utilisation and decision making.

21. No funding is currently planned for Eden Park, but an existing loan facility of $54million is currently available until 2029. It is not clear whether Eden Park intends to repay the loan at this point or seek an extension. Given Eden Park faces significant capital costs, decisions on long-term funding and financing arrangements for Eden Park will likely need to be made as part of the Long-term Plan 2027 - 2037.

22. Council’s financial position is likely to remain constrained, making it essential to prioritise investment and base decisions on good information.

23. The stadium network also faces some persistent challenges in optimising the value it provides to Aucklanders, which include:

· Aging infrastructure network – the network faces substantial renewal costs to remain safe, functional, and competitive. As assets degrade, increasing investment will be required to maintain venue quality and usability.

· Undertilisation – some stadiums are operating below capacity or below their potential best use, which results in a greater demand on public funding and reduces the public value received.

· Fragmented ownership and operating model – the current ownership and operating structure may present challenges for achieving coordination across the region, and optimising investment based on what is best for Auckland.

24. Given the above context, it is likely that council will need to make significant decisions as part of the Long-term Plan 2027 -2037. Work to inform those decisions needs to start early.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Council developed initial set of stadium network investment objectives

25. In response to Governing Body direction and the above context, and as a first step, council staff have developed a set of stadium network investment objectives to guide council and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited in further planning and advice to Governing Body (Attachment A).

26. The objectives are intended to guide the development of a more detailed stadium network investment plan to inform Governing Body decisions required as part the Long-term Plan 2027 - 2037. This will ensure a more strategic approach to investment that maximises value for Auckland, while ensuring sustainability and alignment with priorities.

27. As set out below, this initial work is based on existing strategy and plans, guidance from elected members stakeholder feedback, and good practice (including a review of international examples).

Existing strategies and plans

28. The proposed investment objectives incorporate and take account of direction in the Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034, Auckland Plan 2050 and other strategies relating to Climate (Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan), Māori Outcomes (Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau), and Thriving Communities (Ngā Hapori Momoho Thriving Communities).

29. A well-run stadium network would contribute to all Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes, especially belonging and participation (including Focus Area 7: Recognise the value of arts, culture, sports and recreation to quality of life), and opportunity and prosperity.

Political direction from Governing Body

30. A workshop was held with Governing Body on 28 February 2025, in which staff sought political direction on intended objectives for the stadium network. Elected members had an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed objectives at a drop-in session on 17 March 2025. Themes that emerged from this political engagement include:

· Stadiums should be accessible to all, can be used by the community and deliver social benefits

· There should be “more full stadiums”, used more often, so we need to avoid over-investment or overbuilding infrastructure, and take a network approach

· Stadiums need to adapt to meet changing needs and preferences, enable flexible use and are high performance, we cannot predict the future demands

· Stadiums can be part of place making, we need to take a “precinct” view

· When considering investment, we must take a wider view of return on investment than just financial, as well as a long-term view (i.e. 80 to 100 years horizon)

· Elected members would like to continue exploration of a Single Operator Stadiums Auckland (SOSA) model.

Stakeholder engagement and early themes

31. Throughout February and March 2025, staff engaged with a broad range of stadium users, regional and national sporting bodies, and key industry stakeholders to understand sector-specific needs and future investment priorities.

32. In total, representatives from 23 organisations were consulted to provide insight that shaped the development of the objectives, with further engagement planned as part of the stadium investment plan development. A draft version of the objectives was shared with Eden Park, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and the North Harbour Locally led Working Party, given their particular interest.

33. While each stakeholder had unique priorities, several common themes emerged from stadium users:

· The need for a long-term, structured stadium strategy: A cohesive stadium strategy that considers sporting, community, and entertainment needs will create a sustainable network for Auckland.

· Enhancing the user experience and family-friendly facilities: Designing stadiums with families and diverse audiences in mind will enhance attendance and engagement across all sports.

· Optimising stadium management and operational efficiencies: A balanced approach to stadium operations will help ensure venues remain financially viable while supporting Auckland’s sports and entertainment sectors.

· Strategic planning to support Auckland’s event calendar: Auckland’s event hosting potential can be maximised through coordinated planning that ensures efficient use of venues and resources.

· Investment in high-performance facilities to support Auckland’s growth: Investing in high-performance centres will strengthen Auckland’s reputation as a sporting hub while supporting talent development across multiple sports.

34. A list of the stakeholders engaged with is provided in Attachment B.

Good practice and examples

35. In formulating the objectives, it was useful to learn from approaches taken elsewhere and to understand broader trends. Council staff undertook a brief desktop review of relevant national and international context. This included reviewing stadiums strategies from New South Wales (NSW Stadia Strategy, 2012), Victoria (Home Ground Advantage, 2018) as well as information about approaches in Dunedin, Christchurch and Wellington.

36. Key findings were captured in the current state analysis attached to the report on main stadium feasibility reports, and aspects of the Victorian strategy have been used as a basis for the objectives.

Proposed investment objectives

Public value outcomes – what outcomes council seeks from investment

37. The objectives note that council will seek to maximise public value from public funding, and that stadiums contribute to council’s vision for Ackland across four key outcome areas linked to the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes:

· Community cohesion: provide community hubs that bring people and communities together in ways that support greater community cohesion and wellbeing and fosters pride.

· Economic opportunity & prosperity: Create economic opportunities through attracting visitors, stimulating local businesses and forming connected, thriving urban precincts.

· Vibrant city & culture: Support a vibrant, globally competitive city that has great opportunities for people to experience cultural and sporting activities, and showcases our diverse cultures, including Auckland’s Māori identity.

· Healthy and active communities: Promote a healthy and active community by encouraging participation in sporting, and other community and cultural activities

38. Auckland’s contribution to national outcomes is also noted as important and something that justifies government contribution.

39. This section articulates the “why” of council investment, as well as emphasising the importance of linking public funding to public outcomes which requires vigilance in relation to stadium investment.

Investment priorities – what council will focus on

40. Four investment priorities are proposed, to guide what council will focus on:

· Get the most out of our infrastructure: maximise utilisation (more full stadiums), improve asset management, support investment that creates fit for purpose venues that provide greater experiences, attracts content.

· Support a complementary network of multi-use facilities: stadiums serve distinct, complementary purposes within the network (avoiding council funding creating redundancy); prioritise multi-purpose, adaptable hubs; serve the whole region.

· Promote integrated, sustainable precincts: stadiums contribute to success of surrounding urban environment; integrate with transport planning; enable appropriate use and development of stadiums to manage effects of surrounding environment

· Improve financially sustainability: invest responsibly to reduce reliance on and risk to ratepayers, leverage partnerships and commercial opportunities where possible.

Investment and stewardship principles – how council will govern and manage its investment

41. To deliver on these objectives, the plan proposes investment principles to guide how council will undertake its role:

· Act regionally – based on what’s best for Auckland: investment must prioritise Auckland’s long-term interests and regional outcomes

· Understand demand & community needs: understand and engage with stadium users, community and mana whenua & mataawaka.

· Understand and manage costs; use good asset management: Support decisions with good asset data, improve asset management and operational efficiency

· Invest smartly & responsible: Require robust business cases & cost-benefit analysis which demonstrate public value for significant investment decisions. Consider whole-of-life costs, adaptability & resilience of infrastructure

· Provide strategic leadership & identify opportunities: Set clear direction; partner with central government on national priorities; uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations; facilitate collaboration & partnership with broader sector to achieve outcomes, realise opportunities

Staff recommend Governing Body adopts the proposed investment objectives

42. The table one outlines options, considering Governing Body decision for council to exercise strong strategic leadership role in relation to stadiums.

Table one
Options	Description	Recommendation and rationale
(1) Do nothing	Retains the status quo. Council will provide ad-hoc advice on major decisions for individual venues and continue work on LTP Advantage could be that this option avoids incurring some cost of further work, or the risk that objectives are not fit-for-purpose and will be ignored.	Not recommended, this approach fails to support the Governing Body in resolving gap in strategic direction, and setting direction for future planning and advice
(2) Adopt stadium network investment objectives as the first step to developing a more detailed stadium investment plan	Establish a set of objectives to guide future planning and decisions	Recommended, this approach offers a transparent, structured and right-sized approach to setting priorities and guiding future work
(3) Adopt a comprehensive investment plan or strategy for each of Auckland’s stadium venues	Deliver a 10 to 30-year investment plan outlining how each venue will evolve and be funded.	Not recommended, as further work is required to develop a full investment plan or strategy, and in the meantime decisions may need to be made about individual venues

Climate impact statement

43. Through Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan, Auckland Council has made a commitment to adaptation to climate change and a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

44. The investment objectives support investment decisions that reduce climate emissions and plan for climate impacts.

45. The proposed investment priority “Promote integrated, sustainable precincts” specifically includes “mitigate, planning for climate impacts”. In addition, under the investment principle “Invest smartly and responsibly” it is noted that council will conder whole-of-life carbon cost of investments, as well as adaptability and resilience.

46. A further investment priority is to make the most of our infrastructure, which will generally (although not always) result in prioritising renewals and enhancements over new builds that will reduce carbon costs.

47. A retrofit of the No 1 court in Wimbledon for example saved an estimated 9,000 tonnes of embedded carbon compared with a new build alternative. Using this example, it was estimated that building a new 40,000 capacity stadium could have almost eight times the upfront embodied carbon compared with improving an existing asset.^{^[4]}

48. Examples from Australia also showed the importance of having clear strategic network priorities to enable long-term planning and assess construction proposals. Using a Life Cycle Assessment approach in the design of Stadium Australia led to a 37 per cent reduction in GHG emissions and 13 per cent reduction in water usage.^{^[5]}

Council group impacts and views

49. Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) play a significant role in the stadium network. TAU staff have contributed to the development of the proposed framework and have supported council staff with stakeholder engagement, although council staff have undertaken this separately from TAU.

50. Council family staff, TAU staff in particular, will continue to be involved in the ongoing development of the plan and the implementation of the framework.

Financial implications

51. There is no direct financial impact from adopting the objectives. They will be used to guide future advice on investment.

52. Auckland Council has budgeted $146.3 million in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 for operating and maintaining the three venues operated by TAU in its current configuration. It is important that this investment is used in the most impactful and efficient way possible.

53. The objectives have been developed to ensure investment delivers what is best for Auckland, in line with council’s commitment to prudent use of public funds to maximise community outcomes.

Risks and mitigations

54. The following table outlines possible risks and how they would be mitigated.

Risk area	Risk	Impact	Mitigation
Stakeholder misalignment and competing objectives	Sports organisations, event promoters, local boards, or mana whenua may have conflicting priorities	Decision-making could be delayed, and the framework may not gain necessary support for implementation.	Establish a structured engagement process, including advisory groups and partnership forums, to align priorities early and ensure transparent decision-making.
Changing market conditions and demand uncertainty	Sports participation trends, live entertainment demand, or economic conditions may shift	Planned stadium investments may become underutilised or misaligned with future needs.	Multi use facilities is a core principle within the plan which would allow for flexibility in the plan by incorporating regular reviews and demand assessments to adjust investment priorities as needed.
Governance and Operational Challenges	Proposals for repurposing, or relocations are planned without sufficient public and political support A lack of coordination between stadium operators and governance bodies	Decisions may face resistance, delaying implementation and potentially undermining public confidence. Inefficiencies, duplication of effort, and inconsistent venue management will be exacerbated	A structured process to involve political direction and stakeholders, review of governance structures, ensuring clear roles and responsibilities across stakeholders to enhance operational efficiency. Continue work on a single operator model.
Reputational risk	Proposals for repurposing, or relocations are planned without sufficient public and political support	Decisions may face resistance, delaying implementation and potentially undermining public confidence.	Implementation will include stakeholder and public engagement with clear communication of the rationale for decisions and ensure decisions are supported by a strong evidence base

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. The stadium investment objectives provide guidance for future investment decisions in Auckland’s stadium network. It notes that investment decisions will need to align with and uphold te Tiriti o Waitangi-based obligations and council’s strategy on Māori Outcomes (Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau).

56. The process of developing an investment plan will need to include a thorough consideration of mana whenua views, particularly in relation to governance, cultural identity, and economic opportunities.

57. The stadium network presents an opportunity to embed and celebrate Auckland’s Māori identity and participation. Council is committed to ensuring that stadium investment’s support Māori outcomes, cultural expression, and community participation. As the network evolves, opportunities to enhance Māori visibility, enable mana whenua partnerships, and increase Māori access to sporting and entertainment events will be explored in collaboration with mana whenua and mātāwaka

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

Local impacts and local board views

58. This initial phase has focused on seeking regional political direction and gathering feedback from stadium network users to inform strategic decision making.

59. Local boards have a key role in representing community views on stadium-related matters. They also provide leadership and governance in relation to other importance venues, which are essential for local sporting, cultural, and community events. Their input will be critical in ensuring the stadium network investment plan balances both regional and local needs.

60. Due to the current locally led expression of interest (EOI) process for North Harbour Stadium, staff have engaged with the chairs of the Upper Harbour and Hibiscus and Bays local boards. Council staff will continue to support this process, ensuring alignment across related stadium projects.

61. Staff will engage with local boards throughout the next phases of work. This engagement will focus on ensuring that local priorities, operational considerations, and community needs are integrated into the broader strategic approach.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

62. If the stadium network investment objectives are adopted, council staff will use the objectives to guide advice on upcoming stadium decisions including those relating to Western Springs and North Harbour Stadium.

63. Staff will also use the objectives and those decisions to guide development of a stadium network investment plan to inform the Long-term Plan 2027–2037. A structured work programme has been developed to indicate the scope of this work. It would include:

· Detailed demand and supply analysis

· Asset management and financial information (including cost estimates and drivers)

· Stakeholder engagement (including with central government on national priorities, and the Eden Park Trust Board)

· Explore opportunities and options

· Develop an investment plan, with options, for Governing Body consideration

64. The programme will be delivered within existing budgets. Staff will continue to engage with elected members at key decision points to ensure the investment plan remains responsive to council priorities and stakeholder input.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Stadium network investment objectives
b ⇨	Stakeholder record of engagement and summary of key themes

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dave Jaggs - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Max Hardy - Director Group Strategy and Chief Executive Office

Phil Wilson - Chief Executive

Governing Body

27 March 2025

Main stadium feasibility studies

File No.: CP2025/01512

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To:

a) receive feasibility studies for a new or upgraded “main stadium” from the Eden Park Trust Board and the Te Tōangaroa consortium, and council’s assessment of those studies and the status quo; and

b) agree on next steps (if any).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Background – structured process to consider unsolicited proposals for a new or upgraded main stadium

2. In recent years, council has received several unsolicited proposals from third parties about developing a “main stadium” at little or no additional cost to ratepayers. The Eden Park Trust Board has also expressed a desire to progress significant upgrades of its facility.

3. There were – and still are – no plans for council to provide funding towards a new stadium or significant upgrades to existing stadiums. However, the unsolicited interest from multiple parties required a structured process to manage expectations and resources. Council could also play a leadership role in supporting an option as best for Auckland, and resolving uncertainty that impacts on the ability to strategically plan for and invest in the network.

4. Based on the Mayor’s recommendations, a formalised Expression of Interest (EOI) process was established under the political oversight of the Stadium Venues Working Group (Working Group). An open Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) was published seeking options to deliver a main stadium at little to no cost to ratepayers.

5. Following the Working Group’s process, the Governing Body resolved to invite the proponents of Eden Park 2.1 (Eden Park Trust) and Te Tōangaroa/Quay Park (Te Tōangaroa Consortium) to undertake, at their own cost, feasibility studies to demonstrate their project’s deliverability and relative merit (GB/2024/71). It requested the Chief Executive undertake an assessment of the status quo and coordinate the feasibility work.

Assessment of feasibility studies

6. Both proponents provided feasibility studies on 4 February 2025. These are included as Attachment A and Attachment B. A council panel reviewed the studies, as well as views of CCOs and other agencies (POAL, NZTA and KiwiRail). The panel’s report is at Attachment C. Council also undertook a “current state” analysis, which is at Attachment D.

7. The key finding of council’s review of the feasibility studies is that neither proponent has demonstrated that their proposal is feasible without significant public funding.

8. A summary of council’s assessment is noted below.

· Eden Park 2.1:

o With a high degree of confidence, Eden Park 2.1 is feasible in most respects, but it is not currently financially feasible as it depends on additional council and/or central government funding. The full extent of public funding required cannot be determined, but Eden Park Trust are seeking $110 million in funding from Government for Stage 1 (Lower North Stand Development).

o The proposal to redevelop Eden Park is broken into several stages. Council or government could choose to support or assist with one or several stages if desired.

o A staged approach to developing Eden Park appears to have merit. Stage 1 appears to provide public value by improving the operational effectiveness of the venue and its functionality across a range of activities, including for rugby, cricket, concerts and smaller events. It also enables Stage 2 (redevelopment of the upper North Stand), which could be funded privately. The benefits of Stage 3 (retractable roof) are less clear and appear unlikely to justify the cost. As such, there may be merit in supporting the development of a business case for government support for Stage 1, subject to several conditions designed to resolve challenges with the status quo. This would not involve full endorsement of Eden Park 2.1.

· Tōangaroa/Quay Park:

o Te Tōangaroa has not demonstrated the feasibility of their proposal. While it may be technically and environmentally feasible, based on the information provided, council has a low level of confidence in its deliverability.

o It is possible that Te Tōangaroa is commercially feasible, but council has a low level of confidence because it depends on a range of optimistic assumptions regarding infrastructure and construction costs and financing.

o Te Tōangaroa could have significant public benefits if delivered without public funding, providing a major integrated redevelopment and modern stadium well-located in the city centre close to transport links. The proposal would also have financial benefits to council if it meant that renewal of Mt Smart was no longer required. Te Tōangaroa has indicated they would need a further 12 months to provide greater certainty about their project’s deliverability.

· Status quo:

o The current state is that Eden Park is the largest stadium in the network. The stadium hosts a wide range of major sporting and entertainment events, and can continue to do so, but will require maintenance and renewal.

o The Long-term Plan 2024–2034 plans for council to invest $146.3 million in operating and maintaining the council-owned network over 10 years ($111.5 million for capital expenditure, $34.8 million for operating expenditure).

o No funding is currently planned for Eden Park, but an existing loan facility of $54million is available until 2029. It is uncertain whether Eden Park intends to repay this loan within the current loan term or seek an extension. In the 2022/23 annual budget process, Eden Park Trust requested $62.8 million ($6.28 million of grant funding per year for 10 years) to complete a refurbishment plan.

o Retaining the status quo for the network is feasible, but more work is required to ascertain the long-term cost of the status quo and to resolve the long-term funding and financing arrangements for Eden Park. There are a range of challenges with the status quo, including whether Eden Park’s current planning and governance constraints enable it to deliver best value to Auckland.

Decisions and next steps

9. Council officers recommend that the Governing Body receives the findings of the feasibility process and decides on next steps.

10. Governing Body could endorse an option as its preference to proceed to a business case stage; decline to take any further steps; or delay a decision to enable more information. It may also direct staff to do further work to engage with Eden Park and resolve issues with the status quo. An assessment of options is provided in the report.

11. The findings of this main stadium process will support staff in ongoing work to develop a stadium investment plan to inform the Long-term Plan 2027–2037, noting it is not expected that any significant council funding decisions would be made before then.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) whiwhi / receive the feasibility studies provided by Eden Park Trust (Eden Park 2.1.) and Te Tōangaroa Consortium (Te Tōangaroa/Quay Park) for a main stadium, which were provided to council at the proponent’s own cost and at the invitation of the Governing Body;

b) whiwhi / receive council’s review of the feasibility studies, which concludes that:

i) Neither proponent has demonstrated that their proposal is feasible without significant public funding;

ii) Eden Park 2.1 is technically feasible, but is not currently financially feasible because it relies on significant public funding;

iii) Eden Park 2.1 can be progressed in stages and there may be merit in progressing the case for government support for early stages;

iv) Te Tōangaroa has not demonstrated that their proposal is technically or commercially feasible at this stage and has suggested it needs more time to do so.

c) whiwhi / receive council’s review of the current state of the network, which notes the status quo is that Eden Park is the region’s largest nationally significant stadium and notes several challenges affecting the stadium network.

Horopaki

Context

Importance of the “main stadium” and Auckland’s national role

12. As New Zealand’s largest city and primary international gateway, Auckland plays a national role in hosting major sporting, cultural, and entertainment events. A fit-for-purpose main stadium is a critical component to enabling Auckland—and by extension, New Zealand—to attract and deliver events of national and global significance.

13. To continue hosting major sporting and entertainment events and remain competitive globally, Auckland’s main stadium should have a capacity of at least 50,000. Only one main stadium of this scale is sustainable.

14. Eden Park currently serves this role within the network. Over the years, there has been debate about constructing new stadium to replace Eden Park.

Current network state

15. Any “main stadium” will exist within the network of existing large stadiums. An assessment of the current stage is provided at Attachment D.

16. The current network comprises several aging venues that require capital investment to remain safe and competitive. Council has planned to spend around $146.3m over the next 10 years to maintain and operate the Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) venues based on minimum requirements.

17. This does not include any investment in any other venue or costs for capital improvements and more detailed asset condition assessments are required to understand the true funding needs for the network.

18. No funding is currently planned for Eden Park, but an existing loan facility of $54million is available until 2029. It is uncertain whether Eden Park intends to repay this loan within the current loan term of seek an extension. Further in the 2022/2023 annual budget process, the Eden Park Trust requested $62.8 million ($6.28 million of grant funding per year for 10 years) to complete a refurbishment plan. Under the status quo, decisions about these arrangements will likely need to be made as part of the Long-term Plan 2027-2037 process.

Structured process to consider unsolicited proposals for a new or upgraded main stadium

19. In recent years, council received several unsolicited proposals from third parties about developing a “main stadium” at little or no additional cost to ratepayers. The Eden Park Trust Board also expressed a desire to progress significant upgrades of its facility.

20. There were – and still are – no plans for council to provide funding towards a new stadium or significant upgrades to existing stadiums. However, the unsolicited interest from multiple parties required a structured process to manage expectations and resources. Council could also play a leadership role in supporting an option as best for Auckland, and resolving uncertainty that impacts on the ability to strategically plan for and invest in the network.

21. Based on the Mayor’s recommendations, a formalised Expression of Interest (EOI) process was established under the political oversight of the Stadium Venues Working Group. An open Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) was published in September 2023 seeking options to deliver a main stadium at little to no cost to ratepayers.

22. Of the eight submissions received, four were deemed compliant and reviewed with advisory support from Stanton Reid.

23. Following the Working Group’s process, the Governing Body resolved to invite the proponents of Eden Park 2.1 (Eden Park Trust) and Te Tōangaroa/Quay Park (Te Tōangaroa Consortium) to undertake, at their own cost, feasibility studies to demonstrate their project’s deliverability and relative merit (GB/2024/71). It requested the Chief Executive undertake an assessment of the status quo and coordinate the feasibility work.

Feasibility process

24. Both proponents were invited to provide feasibility studies and provided key questions and assessment criteria to structure their studies. The initial letter provided to both proponents emphasised that proposals were to be based on little to no cost to ratepayers.

25. Council officers worked with the Eden Park Trust Board and the Te Tōangaroa consortium to coordinate the process, including engagement from key CCOs (AT, Eke Panuku) and other agencies (Port of Auckland, KiwiRail, NZTA).

26. Final feasibility studies were submitted by 4 February 2025 and assessed against agreed criteria by a review panel comprising Barry Potter (Director, Infrastructure and Resilience), Max Hardy (Director, Group Strategy and Chief Executive Office), Michael Burns (General Manager, Financial Strategy) and Mike Stanton (Director, Stanton Reid).

27. On 5 March 2025, both proponents presented their proposals to a closed Governing Body workshop.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

28. The feasibility studies from the Eden Park Trust Board and the Te Tōangaroa consortium are provided in Attachments A and B respectively.

29. Below is a summary and high-level analysis of each proposal. The analysis of the review panel is at Attachment C.

Eden Park 2.1

Proposal summary

30. Eden Park 2.1 proposes a phased redevelopment to enhance functionality and capacity:

· Stage 1 – Redevelopment of the Lower North Stand with retractable seating to increase flexibility for rugby and cricket.

· Stage 2 – Redevelopment of the Upper North Stand, with potential additions such as hotel and student accommodation.

· Stage 3 – Installation of a retractable roof to improve venue versatility.

· Future stage (optional) – Development of the outer oval into a complementary precinct, with potential for a hotel, university facilities, or a small second stadium (5,000 capacity).

· Connectivity improvements – Options to enhance links to Kingsland CRL station to improve transport access.

Pros	Cons or concerns	Impact on the rest of the stadium network
The proposal demonstrates technical and environmental feasibility and deliverability. The proposal would deliver a more flexible layout and the following capacity: 40,000+ for cricket, 50,000+ for rugby and concerts, and 60,000+ for multi-function events (such as conventions or trade conferences). It would improve the operational effectiveness of the venue (increased venue utilisation and weather resilience). Development can be staged, and there appears to be merit in developing stages 1 and 2 further for government support. As an existing venue the proposal means less disruption and it has a proven track record of attracting major events and using the venue as for a range of content.	Requires public funding from either central government, Auckland Council, or both. Uncertainty over whether the projected events per year can be achieved, despite the recent increase in consented days. Recent analysis suggests stadium upgrades may not significantly increase major event content. The current governance arrangement which includes legacy obligations may not be optimal for achieving the highest public value for the facility	Reinforces Eden Park as ‘New Zealand’s main stadium.’ Can host international events across multiple sporting codes and large concerts. Supports Auckland Council in making strategic network decisions, particularly regarding Western Springs Stadium and North Harbour Stadium.

Pros

Cons or concerns

Impact on the rest of the stadium network

The proposal demonstrates technical and environmental feasibility and deliverability.

The proposal would deliver a more flexible layout and the following capacity: 40,000+ for cricket, 50,000+ for rugby and concerts, and 60,000+ for multi-function events (such as conventions or trade conferences).

It would improve the operational effectiveness of the venue (increased venue utilisation and weather resilience).

Development can be staged, and there appears to be merit in developing stages 1 and 2 further for government support.

As an existing venue the proposal means less disruption and it has a proven track record of attracting major events and using the venue as for a range of content.

Requires public funding from either central government, Auckland Council, or both.

Uncertainty over whether the projected events per year can be achieved, despite the recent increase in consented days.

Recent analysis suggests stadium upgrades may not significantly increase major event content.

The current governance arrangement which includes legacy obligations may not be optimal for achieving the highest public value for the facility

Reinforces Eden Park as ‘New Zealand’s main stadium.’

Can host international events across multiple sporting codes and large concerts.

Supports Auckland Council in making strategic network decisions, particularly regarding Western Springs Stadium and North Harbour Stadium.

Assessment of feasibility

31. The review panel notes that:

· With a high degree of confidence, Eden Park 2.1 is feasible in most respects (technically and operational), but it is not currently financially feasible as it depends on additional council and/or central government funding. The full extent of public funding required cannot be determined, but Eden Park Trust are seeking $110 million in funding from Government for Stage 1 (Lower North Stand Development).

· The proposal to redevelop Eden Park is broken into several stages, and council or government could choose to assist with one or several stages if desired.

· A staged approach to developing Eden Park appears to have merit. Stage 1 appears to provide public value by improving the operational effectiveness of the venue and its functionality across a range of activities, including for rugby, cricket, concerts and smaller events. It also enables Stage 2 (redevelopment of the Upper North Stand), which could be funded privately. The benefits of Stage 3 (retractable roof) are less clear and appear unlikely to justify the cost. As such, there may be merit in supporting the development of a business case for government support for Stage 1, subject to several conditions. This would not involve full endorsement of Eden Park 2.1.

Eden Park’s position

32. The Eden Park Trust Board accept that their proposal relies on public funding. They noted that the full Eden Park 2.1 proposal is a long-term vision, and that stage one (Lower North Stand Development) is currently the most important and demonstrates public value.

33. This enables the venue to be optimised for a range of activities including rugby, cricket and concerts. They intend to discuss options with central government for funding the $110m required for this development, noting the significant economic contribution the venue has made to the country.

Te Tōangaroa Proposal

Proposal summary

34. The Te Tōangaroa proposal integrates a multi-purpose stadium with the development of the surrounding Quay Street precinct.

· Phase 1 – Acquisition and development of land within the wider precinct. This stage will proceed regardless of the stadium decision, with support from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei as landowners.

· Subsequent phases – Profits from initial development will provide capital for further land acquisition and property development, including the main stadium. This phase is estimated to take seven years to complete.

35. It is proposed to be privately funded through structured private capital (primarily debt-financed) and revenue from precinct development, ensuring no reliance on ratepayer or government funding

36. Procurement and delivery model leverages global supply chain optimisation and bulk procurement to significantly reduce cost exposure, ensuring efficient capital deployment.

Pros	Cons or concerns	Impact on the rest of the stadium network
The proposal introduces a new funding model not previously used in New Zealand infrastructure projects. It claims to be deliverable at a lower cost than similar developments and does not require public funds. If delivered it would revitalise the quay park area and provide a new purpose-built multi-use venue in a central location with strong transport links. It would deliver broad public benefits, including affordable housing, urban realm improvement and better transport links for big events. If successful, this would require little to no public funds to be delivered.	There is low confidence in the deliverability of the proposal, due to: · No detailed costings and unclear assumptions. · Unproven funding model in New Zealand. · Lack of detail on wider site design. · Complex consenting process with potential challenges. · Land ownership complexities, increasing risks of delays and cost escalations. · Concerns from KiwiRail and Port of Auckland over significant costs and construction disruptions. If delivered, ownership and operation would be privately held, limiting council and governments input to its use. The rectangular stadium design would not support cricket, meaning Auckland could no longer host events like ICC World Cup semi-finals.	The existing stadium network will require continued investment while the new stadium is developed. The council must decide how much to invest in maintenance during this period. If the project is delayed or fails, Auckland risks an underfunded existing stadium network needing even greater capital investment. Once operational, the new stadium would require Eden Park’s decommissioning as New Zealand does not have sufficient content to support two large stadiums. Auckland Council has no controlling interest in Eden Park (other than an outstanding $48.75m loan), making it unable to enforce decommissioning. If both stadiums compete for content, both risk poor operational sustainability. The proponents also envisage that Mt Smart would be decommissioned and all content could be diverted to the new stadium. This could result in scheduling conflicts.

Pros

Cons or concerns

Impact on the rest of the stadium network

The proposal introduces a new funding model not previously used in New Zealand infrastructure projects. It claims to be deliverable at a lower cost than similar developments and does not require public funds.

If delivered it would revitalise the quay park area and provide a new purpose-built multi-use venue in a central location with strong transport links.

It would deliver broad public benefits, including affordable housing, urban realm improvement and better transport links for big events.

If successful, this would require little to no public funds to be delivered.

There is low confidence in the deliverability of the proposal, due to:

· No detailed costings and unclear assumptions.

· Unproven funding model in New Zealand.

· Lack of detail on wider site design.

· Complex consenting process with potential challenges.

· Land ownership complexities, increasing risks of delays and cost escalations.

· Concerns from KiwiRail and Port of Auckland over significant costs and construction disruptions.

If delivered, ownership and operation would be privately held, limiting council and governments input to its use.

The rectangular stadium design would not support cricket, meaning Auckland could no longer host events like ICC World Cup semi-finals.

The existing stadium network will require continued investment while the new stadium is developed. The council must decide how much to invest in maintenance during this period.

If the project is delayed or fails, Auckland risks an underfunded existing stadium network needing even greater capital investment.

Once operational, the new stadium would require Eden Park’s decommissioning as New Zealand does not have sufficient content to support two large stadiums.

Auckland Council has no controlling interest in Eden Park (other than an outstanding $48.75m loan), making it unable to enforce decommissioning. If both stadiums compete for content, both risk poor operational sustainability.

The proponents also envisage that Mt Smart would be decommissioned and all content could be diverted to the new stadium. This could result in scheduling conflicts.

Assessment of feasibility

37. The review panel notes that:

· Te Tōangaroa has not demonstrated the feasibility of their proposal. While it may be technically and environmentally feasible, based on the information provided council has a low level of confidence in its deliverability.

· It is possible that Te Tōangaroa is commercially feasible, but council has a low level of confidence because it depends on a range of optimistic assumptions regarding infrastructure and construction costs and financing.

· Te Tōangaroa could have significant public benefits if delivered without public funding, providing a major integrated redevelopment and modern stadium located in the city centre. Te Tōangaroa has indicated they would need a further 12 months to provide greater certainty about their project’s deliverability.

Te Tōangaroa’s position

38. The consortium acknowledged that due to the early stage of the proposal, demonstrating their feasibility to a high level of confidence of deliverability is difficult.

39. They noted however that in the coming 12 months they intend to progress their land acquisition strategy and continue negotiations, so that they would be able to provide more certainty and confidence in their proposal at that point.

40. They note that they do not require any funding or resource from council. There main request is for council to avoid making funding decisions that would impact the commercial viability for their proposal within the next 12 months while they work to provide greater certainty.

Stakeholder feedback

41. Given the significant implications for Auckland’s infrastructure, council staff engaged with key stakeholders to assess risks and concerns. The following section summarises their feedback

Stakeholder	Eden Park 2.1	Te Tōangaroa
KiwiRail	· Kingsland Station requires upgrades to manage event crowds. · Further infrastructure work will likely be needed.	· Significant disruption to the rail network, with no clear benefit to commuters, freight operations, or maintainability. · No solution provided for train stabling, which would need to be relocated. · High uncertainty around feasibility due to the complexity of underground rail design. · No financial estimate provided for necessary rail modifications.
New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi)	· No comment provided	· No integrated transport assessment was submitted for review. · Concerns about potential road layout changes impacting The Strand and SH16 (a key freight route because of its connection to the Port). · The Strand Bridge is nearing end-of-life and will require replacement, likely causing long-term disruption to the network. · Priority must be given to public transport, walking, and cycling to minimise SH network impacts.
Auckland Transport	· Concerns over Kingsland Station’s capacity for event crowds (a single station with no resilience). · Major events create traffic management issues, particularly at Sandringham Road. · Access impacts on local resident access. · High operating costs for major Mt Eden events.	· Construction over the railway presents challenges. · Proximity to Parnell, Britomart, and a new Strand station could improve crowd dispersal. · Potential for improved walking and cycling connections in the area. · Easier access to the motorway and major transport hubs. · Land use redevelopment could lead to better transport outcomes.
Port of Auckland Limited	· No comment provided	· Initial plans required port land use: however, the proposal has since removed this aspect. · POAL has not reviewed updated plans. · POAL will not support any proposal that reduces port footprint or restricts access. Additional concerns: · Noise and air quality impacts from an open-front stadium. · Urban development must include noise mitigation, ventilation, and outdoor space restrictions to avoid disrupting 24/7 port operations. · Events and urban development must not obstruct critical port traffic routes such as The Strand and Beach Road.
Eke Panuku	· No comment provided	· Provided market analysis to the review panel. · Raised concerns about the market’s capacity to absorb the proposed residential developments in the current environment. · Questioned the costing assumptions behind projected property sale prices. · Noted that there is a long-term city centre plan to grow the population of the inner city which requires residential buildings such as those proposed by Te Tōangaroa

Options analysis

42. Based on analysis of the feasibility studies, four possible options have been identified:

· Option 1: Decline to endorse either proposal

This option accepts that neither proposal has sufficiently demonstrated feasibility based on current funding constraints and retains the stadium network as it is with Eden Park as the largest (and therefore main) stadium in the network.

Further work can then be undertaken to develop a stadium investment plan before any significant funding decisions are made. This includes council undertaking the necessary asset condition assessments for a more accurate assessment of the public funding required for the stadium network. Council could also progress discussions with Eden Park on the loan facility and governance arrangements and look to align with national level venue planning. This would allow elected members to make a more informed long-term decision. Either or both proponents could use this time to undertake further work to demonstrate feasibility.

Rationale: This approach provides clarity on the main stadium for the time being and allows council to develop a strategic view of the stadium network. It would also allow council to continue detailed analysis of network needs, funding requirements and plan accordingly.

Considerations: Auckland and New Zealand may forgo the opportunity to develop a stadium capable of attracting more international events and contributing to the city's vibrancy at little to no public cost.

By not endorsing either option, council may impact the ability for either or both proponents to obtain the external funding required to establish their business case. This could prolong uncertainty for Eden Park and weaken its case for public funding.

The status quo requires public funding for all stadiums currently in the network operated by Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and Eden Park. The exact figure required is currently unclear and requires a detailed assessment.

· Option 2: Endorse Eden Park 2.1

Under this option, the Governing Body would express confidence in the feasibility of Eden Park 2.1 and endorse its development.

Rationale: Auckland Council would support government funding for Stage One and remaining stages, which could have positive benefits from the city and set out a long-term vision for a modern future stadium.

Considerations: Eden Park Trust would need to establish the business case for government’s investment, as there is currently no council funding available. Auckland Council should prioritise its support for funding requests to Government and ensure such requests are robust. Stage 3 (retractable roof) appears unlikely to be justified.

Eden Park still has an outstanding loan with council. The current governance arrangement that gives preferential rights to two regional organisations may not be optimal for realising the best value for all Auckland and the country from public investment. These would need to be addressed.

If government does not support Eden Park’s proposal for funding, then redevelopment is not viable, and council will need to resolve challenges with status quo.

Endorsing significant long-term investment in Eden Park would reflect a long-term commitment to Eden Park and may undermine the case for any alternative for the foreseeable future (or risk further stranded investment). This may prevent development of better options.

· Option 3: Endorse Te Tōangaroa

Under this option, the Governing Body could endorse Te Tōangaroa proposal, assuming it has sufficient confidence in its feasibility.

Rationale: This option is the only one that could provide a main stadium that does not propose requirement of public funds. The new stadium involves a compelling vision for a redeveloped and revitalised area.

Considerations: This option provides a high level of uncertainty currently surrounding key assumptions. It also gives a high level of uncertainty to the rest of the stadium network while the project is developed, limiting the ability to plan for future network needs and event hosting.

· Option 4: Invite both proponents to submit a business case to establish the case for their proposal

This option invites either or both proponents to submit a business case to council to establish the case for their proposal. The status quo would remain throughout this period.

Rationale: The assessment found that neither proposal was able to demonstrate feasibility to a level that Auckland Council was confident in its deliverability in the time allotted. However, given more time they may be able to do this to a higher level of confidence and establish a business case.

Considerations: This option does not require any funding or resource from council and provides both proponents the time to develop proposals and funding sources further.

Further work could also be undertaken to develop a stadium investment plan before any significant funding decisions are made.

By not endorsing either option, council may impact the ability for either or both proponents to obtain the external funding required to establish their business case and prolong uncertainty.

While a detailed business case could be developed for either proposal, both proponents have already incurred significant costs during this process. Business cases are resource-intensive and costly, and progressing further does not guarantee a viable outcome. It is possible that neither proponent would be willing to engage in the process on this basis, given continued uncertainty about council’s preference.

· Option 5: Endorse the staged development of Eden Park, but not the whole of Eden Park 2.1

Under this option, the Governing Body would express confidence that redevelopment of Eden Park is the best and most feasible option for providing Auckland with a fit-for-purpose main stadium in the future, but not endorse the full Eden Park 2.1 proposal. This is a variant on the status quo.

Rationale: Auckland Council could support government funding for Stage One, which could have positive benefits from the city. This would reduce uncertainty about council’s position and the future of the network, and provide a stronger basis for discussion with Eden Park and its pitch to government.

Considerations: Eden Park Trust would need to establish the business case for government’s investment, as there is currently no council funding available.

If government does not support Eden Park’s proposal for funding, then redevelopment is not viable, and council will need to resolve challenges with status quo.

Endorsing significant investment in Eden Park may reflect a long-term commitment to Eden Park and effectively end the case for any alternative for the foreseeable future (or risk further standard investment).

Climate impact statement

43. Both proponents addressed climate concerns and included examples of how they intended to do this.

44. As an existing venue, Eden Park has a construction impact advantage, with their feasibility study estimating that the 2.1 proposal would generate only 28.5 per cent of the embodied carbon of a newly built stadium.

45. They propose an adaptive reuse approach to construction as well as examples of ongoing operational sustainability such as hand-sorted waste at the end of events.

46. The primary difference between the initial Eden Park 2.0 and the updated 2.1 proposal was a reduction in carbon emissions through more efficient development of existing infrastructure.

47. The Te Tōangaroa proposal outlined a commitment to use the International Olympic Committee Sustainability Principles which includes the utilisation of brownfield redevelopment.

48. Te Tōangaroa also outlined an approach to minimising climate impact through both construction and operation, however due to the proposal still being at the early stage of viability has not provided a detailed breakdown of projected carbon emissions associated with their proposal.

49. A new stadium and surrounding precinct development however will naturally produce significantly more carbon emissions and impact on the environment. Negative environmental impacts would be exacerbated by the potential deconstruction of Eden Park.

Council group impacts and views

50. This process focused on assessing the feasibility of two proposals, with targeted input sought where required.

51. Due to concerns about potential conflicts of interest, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited as the operator of Auckland Stadiums, had limited involvement and did not participate in the review process.

52. Feedback from Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku and Port of Auckland is outlined above.

Financial implications

53. Both proposals were assessed on the basis that the stadium must not require public funding. While there is increasing scrutiny globally on public investment in stadiums, most are still built with significant public contributions.

54. Public funding is often justified because of the economic, social, and cultural benefits events deliver to a locality.

55. The financial assumptions of both proposals that was provided was extensively reviewed and assumptions tested. A high-level overview of the findings is included in appendix C.

56. An outstanding financial consideration is the $48.75m loan facility Eden Park has with Auckland Council, which has a fixed repayment date of 30 September 2029. Through this process, Eden Park has not confirmed that it intends to repay this loan by the current due date. Any decisions on a main stadium, including maintaining the status quo, must consider this financial obligation.

Risks and mitigations

57. The following table outlines possible risks and how they would be mitigated.

Risk (if this...)	Impact (then…)	Mitigation
Auckland misses out on an opportunity for a world class stadium venue
If Council chooses to not endorse either stadium, neither option may proceed	Lack of benefits realised. Public perception may be that council is not enabling Auckland to have a world class stadium venue or accepting a proposal that would not require public funding. Public perception that council is failing to resolve stadium debate	Council continues to work on development of investment plan and resolving challenges with status quo Council staff have developed a communications plan to outline the rationale for the recommendations and our plan for a viable stadium network for the region
Council endorses an option that fails
If Council chooses to endorse an option, it may fail to proceed	Reputational risks Ongoing uncertainty hampers development of network	Do not endorse an option unless feasibility has been demonstrated
Council faces significant costs for poor outcomes

Status quo may result in council needing to invest significant sums in underutilised and constrained infrastructure

Leads to investment in less effective assets and / or stranded assets that deliver suboptimal outcomes

Prevents investment in newer assets

Do not endorse an option unless feasibility has been demonstrated

Council continues to work on development of investment plan

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

58. Both proposals have implications for mana whenua and mātāwaka. Both proposals recognise opportunities to integrate Māori identity and cultural values into stadium design, operations, and governance. This includes incorporating te reo Māori, Māori design elements, and tikanga-based engagement with Māori businesses and event partners.

59. The Te Tōangaroa development would be primarily located on land owned by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, and would realise significant commercial and cultural opportunities for the iwi.

60. As part of ongoing work, future engagement with mana whenua is planned to ensure alignment with te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, Auckland Council’s Māori Outcomes Framework (Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau), and the aspirations of Māori communities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

61. As this process focused on assessing feasibility rather than making a final investment decision, local board feedback was not formally sought. However, future decisions regarding Auckland’s stadium network will include engagement with affected local boards, particularly those in areas where significant stadium infrastructure is located or proposed

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

62. Staff will progress the next steps to give effect to the direction provided by the Governing Body on this matter.

63. Under the status quo option, discussions with the Eden Park Trust Board and the Government would be undertaken to resolve challenges identified with the status quo and to further consider development plans, with any recommendations reported back to Governing Body. This work would support the development of a stadium investment plan to inform the Long-term Plan 2027–2037.

64. Should any party undertake any further feasibility work at their own costs, then depending on the Governing Body direction provided, staff could continue to discuss this work with them.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Eden Park 2.1 Feasibility Study
b ⇨	Te Tōangaroa Feasibility Study
c ⇨	Main stadium feasibility studies findings report
d ⇨	Auckland stadium venues current state analysis

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dave Jaggs - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Max Hardy - Director Group Strategy and Chief Executive Office

Phil Wilson - Chief Executive

[1] New Zealand Opera note that their attendance numbers are below target due to the cancellation of the second 2024 Opera in Parks event (estimated to bring in 3,000) and low numbers for the first Opera in Parks event (due to poor weather). Their Opera in Schools season was also impacted by cast sickness, reducing the season length in Auckland and therefore the participation reach.

[2] Completed projects include Environmental and roofing upgrades to main exhibition hall at Great North Road (September 2023), car park at Motions Road site - Stage 1 (August 2022), upgrade of the entrance to the Aviation Hall (August 2022), upgrade of MOTAT2 entrance (August 2022), environmental and roofing upgrades to Building 6 (Pink Building), café upgrade and a partial upgrade to entrance of the Great North Rd MOTAT1 site.

[3] Council can appoint 6 members of the board under the MOTAT Act (from a total of 10). The MOTAT Society appoints the remaining 4 members.

Mayor	Wayne Brown
Deputy Mayor	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
Councillors	Cr Andrew Baker	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Julie Fairey	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM	Cr Ken Turner
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Lotu Fuli	Cr John Watson
	Cr Shane Henderson	Cr Maurice Williamson
	Cr Richard Hills

Resolution Number	Item	Status
GB/2025/8	Auckland Future Fund establishment update and Letter of Expectation 2025-2026 approval	Letter of Expectation issued
GB/2025/12	Auckland Council proposal to the Department of Internal Affairs on the Regional Deals Framework 2025 A copy is appended as Attachment A.	Finalise proposal and submitted on 28 February 2025
GB/2025/13	Auckland Council's submission on the Local Government (Water Services) Bill A copy is appended as Attachment B.	Submission finalised and submitted to Finance & Expenditure Committee on 28 February 2025. Select Committee hearing completed.

Date	Subject
20.2.25	2025/2026 Letter of Expectation: Auckland Transport
20.2.25	2025/2026 Letter of Expectation: Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU)
20.2.25	2025/2026 Letter of Expectation: Watercare Services Limited
7.3.25	2025/2026 Letter of Expectation: Auckland Future Fund Trustee Limited
13.3.25	Letter from Mayor Wayne Brown to Elected Members – Stop Wasting Money: Capital Spending Rules

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Forward Work Programme
b ⇨	2025/2026 Letter of Expectation: Auckland Transport (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	2025/2026 Letter of Expectation: Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	2025/2026 Letter of Expectation: Watercare Services Limited (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	2025/2026 Letter of Expectation: Auckland Future Fund Trustee Limited (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Letter from Mayor Wayne Brown to Elected Members – Stop Wasting Money: Capital Spending Rules (Under Separate Cover)

Author	Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors
Authoriser	Phil Wilson - Chief Executive

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987