Attachments of Revenue, Expenditure and Value Committee

1. Executive Summary

This project is to construct a shared path to improve access for the community, including pedestrians, cyclists and those with limited mobility, along the esplanade reserve between Kohu Street and Marine View, Ōrewa.

Ōrewa Beach is a 2.6km stretch of coastal area with a variety of challenging erosion issues and has been identified as Auckland’s highest priority at-risk coastal area. Auckland Council has adopted a coastal management and development plan for this beach - Ōrewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Programme (OBEEP). This plan was initially developed by Rodney District Council (RDC) and was subsequently reviewed and updated in consultation with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in 2014.

The original path through the esplanade reserve was a combination of undulating grass between lengths of paving stones that was partially protected by sections of placed rock seawall. In its place, a 2.5-metre-wide concrete shared path is being constructed to provide improved access for all abilities, including three pedestrian ramps and five stairways down to one of the most popular and utilised beaches in Auckland.

In addition to being the highest priority at-risk coastal area, Orewa Esplanade is a very well used community asset with over 250,000 visitors accessing the esplanade each year, comparatively higher than other recreational walkways (for example Orakei Basin clocked 172,015 visitors). Investment in protecting this esplanade was important to the community who use it extensively.

Due to the narrow nature of the esplanade reserve and the undulating ground level along the length, a seawall is required to protect the walkway from ongoing erosion and high tide events. The type of seawall (grouted rock) was determined through the Environment Court. Although more expensive to construct than a rock revetment wall, this design provides a longer-lasting solution that will have less impact on the high-tide beach area.

Construction of the project commenced in November 2024, with work expected to be complete by December 2025.

An assessment has been completed against the 10 delivery principles for the project, demonstrating how value for money has been achieved to date.

In addition to the assessment against the 10 delivery principles, we have considered the perception of this investment protecting/benefitting private properties and whether other funding sources such as a targeted rate should have been considered. As this project investment was determined on high-use and protecting access to the esplanade along the beach, and Environment court decisions were driven by access to the beach, we note that protection provided to properties is ancillary. In future however, for significant investment local projects like these, consideration of other funding sources such as a targeted rate could be investigated where there is private as well as public benefit. In general, we do not provide structures for protection where no public benefit exists.

A summary of lessons learned will be documented following the completion of the project.

A picture containing outdoor, sky, ground, tree

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Proposed grouted rock seawall (visualisation)

2. Project Overview

Ōrewa Beach (2.6km in length) has a variety of challenging erosion issues – it is Auckland’s highest priority at-risk coastal area. Monitoring data has been collected on this beach for almost 30 years, giving coastal engineers a comprehensive understanding of wave action, sand movements and projected climate change impacts.

The beach has a long history of modification, including significant reclamation of dune areas to provide for roading and housing. Modification has also included estuary outlet realignment which has, to some extent, altered the natural functioning and stability of the beach. Council has an adopted plan of management and development for the beach called the Ōrewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Programme (OBEEP). This is a multi-faceted programme that directs different management responses for different parts of the beach. This plan was initially developed by Rodney District Council (RDC) and was subsequently reviewed and updated in consultation with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in 2014.

The OBEEP divided the beach into 15 zones to enable specific management options to be developed. The plan identified the highest risk area as Zones 3, 3A and 4, a section of 640 metres between Kohu Street and Marine View. OBEEP recommended that a coastal protection structure be implemented to protect the coastal walkway and prevent further loss of the esplanade reserve and associated high-tide access along the coast to erosion. Importantly, OBEEP also directs that seawalls and coastal protection should not be pursued, nor implemented for southern sections of the beach.

The grassed esplanade reserve along the project area is narrow and is subject to ongoing erosion during storm events. Over time, this has reduced public access along the coastline, particularly at high tide, when access along the beach is not possible.

The existing seawall has failed and the walkway traversing the reserve northwards from Marine View to Kohu Street is currently in poor condition, providing very difficult access to the public. The loss of the esplanade reserve has had a significant impact on public access.

Ōrewa has a limited supply of locally accessible natural recreation settings. The existing esplanade reserve area is poorly developed and defined but is still well-used, as evidenced through track counter data recorded from 2018 – present.

In 2020, track counters near Kohu Street at the northern end of the walkway, recorded 198,315 visitors to this site in that year, with the busiest day having a count of 5,792 visitors. The data indicates comparable levels of use between the beach and the esplanade reserve at high tide.

Between July 2023 to June 2024 a track counter further along the beach recorded 252,605 visitors, which is higher than visitors to Waiatarua Reserve (near Abbotts Way) recorded at 191,625, and Orakei Basin with visitors of 172,015. This beach is one of the most used beaches in Auckland.

The local and regional population is set to increase. The supply of local natural open space is unlikely to grow and would decrease if this section of esplanade reserve was lost.

2.1 Problem Statement:

The project seeks to protect the narrow width of esplanade reserve that remains and enhance access to and along and to the beach and the greater coastal area. This is specifically noted as a matter of national importance under the Resource Management Act.

The installation of the seawall to provide protection to the walkway will address the poor condition of the current asset and ensure the retention of a functional open space. Improved beach access will be provided by the inclusion of three pedestrian ramps and five stairways.

The esplanade reserve forms a critical part of the local parks network and delivers the following key outcomes:

· Contributes to the level of open space provision to meet the demand of a growing population

· A well-connected open space network – the esplanade reserve connects existing parks, namely Kinloch Reserve, Remembrance Reserve, Marine Parade and Moana Reserve

· Active and passive recreation

· Access to and along the coast for a greater proportion of the community, including those with limited mobility.

The recreation opportunities provided by Ōrewa Beach, including the esplanade reserve, support the most important form of active recreation carried out by New Zealanders (walking), and in our most preferred natural recreation setting (the coast).

A picture containing outdoor, nature, road

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Existing footpath along eroded beach following a severe storm in 2013

A beach with rocks and grass

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 3: Same section in 2023 after Cyclone Gabrielle

2.2 Project Scope and objectives:

Scope	Deviations	Comments
Retain and improve access along the esplanade reserve for the community, including pedestrians, cyclists and those with limited mobility.	The current path is a combination of undulating grass, with sections of paving stones. A 2.5-metre-wide concrete shared path has been designed to provide for both pedestrians and cyclists. This is the minimum width based on the Auckland Council Local Path Design Guide. The desired width for a shared path is 3 metres wide.	The design width and materials of the path meets the design guidelines, is achievable within the esplanade reserve, which is narrow in places, and is the most cost-effective solution. Pedestrian ramps and stairs have been included to provide improved access from the walkway to the beach for people of all abilities.
Protect the walkway from erosion and high tide events, while minimising the impact on the beach area.	A sloping rock revetment wall was initially proposed that would have been a cheaper option, but this was not supported by some submitters and beach front property owners through the resource consenting process.	Constructing a more vertical grouted rock seawall minimises the footprint of the seawall on the beach, providing more useable dry high-tide beach area.
Deliver on agreed OBEEP objectives and recommendations for this section of the beach · to proceed with the preparation of design options for a backstop seawall to retain and protect a pathway across Zones 3 and 4. · Present final options to the local board for approval.	The final design of the seawall and related conditions was determined through the Environment Court.	The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supported this project as their One Local Initiative (OLI) project and provided formal evidence, representing the applicant, at the Environment Court.

2.3 Options Analysis:

1. Do nothing

Non-built solutions were investigated and included maintaining the status quo of beach nourishment and restacking of existing rocks. This option was not aligned with OBEEP as a long-term solution to address on-going erosion and loss of esplanade reserve, and the higher frequency of storm and high-tide events affecting the coastline in recent years. The ability to form a walkway along the esplanade reserve without a seawall was not viable, as the current informal path was being continually eroded by tide and weather events.

2. Rock revetment wall and shared path

A sloping rock revetment (placed rock) wall with a concrete shared path along the length was explored in the initial stages of the project. Although cheaper to construct, this style of wall in this location would have encroached further out and onto the beach. This type of structure was opposed by submitters, stakeholders, and some beach front property owners during the resource consent process. The reasons for opposition related to the impacts on coastal processes and natural beach functioning, along with beach access at higher tides (seaward of the rock revetment), and landscape and visual impacts.

3. Grouted rock seawall and shared path

A more vertical basalt rock grouted wall was determined to provide the highest level of protection for the esplanade reserve and path, with minimal enduring maintenance and an anticipated design life of at least 50 years. This style of wall is a long-term solution, takes up less space on the beach and provides for the greatest area of dry high tide useable beach space. All abilities access along the length of the seawall is achieved through the design of a concrete shared path, with three access ramps and five stairways.

Formal mediation with submitters and experts during the Environment Court hearing process helped to determine that a more vertical grouted rock masonry seawall, shared path and integrated access stairs and ramps was the most viable option. This option was supported and endorsed by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. Refinement of the design was guided by the resource consent and related conditions as granted by the Environment Court.

Figure 4: Esplanade reserve prior to construction of walkway

Figure 5: Artist’s impression of the walkway

3. Project Execution:

3.1 Timeline

Schedule	Original date	Actual / Scheduled date	Comments
Construction start date	August 2024	11 November 2024	The start date was delayed due to contract negotiations with the preferred supplier.
Completion date	October 2025	December 2025	Completion is expected to be two months later than originally planned due to the delay in awarding the contract and asbestos discovered on site after construction commenced.

3.2 Budget

Budget	Allocated total	Planned total	Variance
Overall budget (design, consenting and construction)	$21.6m	$16.9m	$4.7m
Ongoing costs	TBD	TBD	TBD
Increased spend	Existing maintenance costs will reduce.
Savings	To be determined at the completion of the project. Savings of approximately $1.7 million were achieved by obtaining building consent approval for an alternative barrier solution (seawall upstand design and one metre planted buffer strip as an alternative). This and other alternative design solutions, including replacing a footbridge with a culvert at Kinloch Reserve, have provided construction cost savings, reduced future maintenance costs and provided stakeholder benefits through less visually obtrusive solutions.

3.3 Challenges Faced and Solutions Implemented

Challenges	Context/Solutions
Obtaining consent	· Resource consent was first applied for in December 2016. Consent was refused in 2017 (BUN60067662), but an appeal on the decision was made to the Environment Court. This decision was guided and supported by the Local Board. · The final decision made by the Court in August 2020 confirmed the need and justification for a seawall in this location.
Design	· A sloping rock revetment (placed rock) wall with a concrete shared path along the length was explored in the initial consenting stages of the project. This design was revised to a grouted rock masonry seawall following feedback from submitters, expert evidence and as part of the environment court mediation process. Rock from the existing seawall is being reused in the matrix of the grouted rock wall, significantly reducing the need for and cost of imported rock.
Stakeholder engagement	· Submissions were made by the community and beachfront property owners through the consenting process. Several submitters continue to have an active interest in the project. · Quarterly project newsletters are distributed to the community, elected members and media providing updates on progress. · Meetings with beachfront property owners have been held on request throughout the design and construction phases.
Construction environment (tides and storm events)	· Tide events limit the available construction period. · Methodology to reduce impacts of reduced working hours (tides) has included the construction of a sand bund (coffer dam) between the sea and esplanade reserve to create a safer, drier construction zone.
Waste material uncovered on site	· Old building materials containing asbestos have been uncovered within the esplanade reserve during construction. This has resulted in additional time and cost for safe disposal. · Currently 95% of construction waste is being diverted from landfill, including the reuse of rock and encapsulation of asbestos containing material (ACM) in the foundation of the new seawall.

4. Assessment against 10 Delivery Principles:

1. Early problem definition and robust value assessment - are we solving the right problem?

· The design objectives were -

1. Maintain a minimum width of esplanade reserve width as far as practicable to maintain access and amenity.

2. Improve accessibility along the esplanade reserve and on to the beach.

3. Limit and better manage wave overtopping during storm events.

4. Use tested, stable design solutions.

5. Minimise intrusion of the structure on beach processes.

6. Enable future seawall modifications to consider ongoing sea level rise.

7. Not prevent other mitigation/enhancement strategies, including sand transfer, beach nourishment or offshore control.

8. Create an all-tide coastal walkway linkage that the community is proud of.

9. Incorporate cost-effective design solutions that align with the Resource Consent requirements and consider long-term maintenance and whole-of-life costs.

· The grassed esplanade reserve in this area is very narrow, and almost non-existent in some areas. It is subject to ongoing erosion during storm events. Over time, this is reducing public access along the coastline, particularly at high tide when access along the beach is unavailable. Depending on the height of the tide and swell conditions, this restriction to access along the beach can last for up to 3 hours.

· The existing unconsented seawall has failed and the walkway traversing the reserve northwards from Marine View to Kohu Street is currently in poor condition, providing very difficult access to the public. The loss of the esplanade reserve would have a significant impact on public access.

· The walkway and seawall will address the poor condition of the current asset and ensure the retention of a functional open space. Improved beach access will be provided by three pedestrian ramps and five stairways.

2. Rightsizing our investment - are we investing the right amount?

· A grouted rock seawall is more expensive than a sloping rock revetment but provides a long-term, durable solution with the lowest amount of on-going maintenance and operational cost.

· Mediation with submitters and experts in support of the environment court hearing resulted in a refinement to the seawall design, where a grouted rock masonry seawall was selected.

· Value for money has been considered throughout the design process. The seawall has been designed with standard foundations, facing stone, rock matrix and backfilling design details utilising material on site. The construction methodology was developed in collaboration with the stonemason subcontractors to ensure construction was practical and cost effective. Concrete finishes for the path, ramps and stairs and lighting have been simplified to align with park design standards.

3. Increase use of standard designs - can we use standardised designs?

· This is not a standard design per se but is considered an engineering option to manage the conditions expected in these circumstances.

· The seawall design is based on a standardised grouted rock mass seawall with an added upstand to limit wave overtopping during storm events.

· The seawall foundation design has considered the local geology for the area, beach sand level fluctuations and the expected wave action during severe storms.

· The seawall facing stone design aligns with other grouted rock seawalls around the Auckland coastline and at Moana Reserve further to the south.

· The walkway design is standardised on Parks Local Path Design specifications. Landscape planting design incorporates hardy plant species that have been selected for their durability and resilience in coastal environments.

4. Setting maximum prices - have we set cost limits?

· Engineer’s estimates were prepared during the design phase at the 30%, 75% and 95% detailed design stages. A maximum project price has been identified.

· Opportunities for cost savings through the design process were regularly explored prior to tendering, to ensure the project was achievable within the allocated budget.

· Budget limits were shared with the consultant designers, and an indication of the construction budget was published and shared with suppliers. Tenders received for construction were lower than anticipated and all were within the construction budget.

5. Factor in past supplier performance - are we choosing the best suppliers?

Professional services

· Concept design and resource consenting services were awarded to Tonkin + Taylor (T+T) in 2014, following a closed tender process to two experienced suppliers for coastal design services.

· After resource consent was granted for the walkway and seawall, and funding allocated, T+T were reappointed in 2022 for detailed design, building consent and construction monitoring services. This was based on their prior knowledge of the coastal processes in the area, their previous record on the project and their coastal expertise in general. T+T were one of two suppliers on the Coastal Design procurement panel at the time.

Construction contractors

· A two-step procurement process was undertaken due to the scale and value of the contract, and the requirement for a contractor experienced in delivering large-scale, high-profile projects.

· Step 1 – Closed Market Registration of Expression of Interest (REOI) using the Auckland Transport Panel One as the initial basis of selection, to eight suppliers

· Step 2 – A Request for Tender to the three most suitable suppliers who satisfied the criteria

· Three tenders were received and evaluated, and all were within the allocated budget for construction. The prices received were considered market competitive and were below the engineer’s estimate of $14.6m.

· The construction contract was awarded to JFC Ltd for $12.5 m. JFC are experienced civil contractors and have delivered multiple projects for the council. One of their nominated stonemason subcontractors is considered the most experienced in Auckland.

· Construction management aspects are tracked through Procore, an independent construction management tool.

6. Focus on local suppliers - are we supporting local suppliers?

· JFC Ltd are Auckland based suppliers, with offices and construction yards in Auckland. Two stonemason subcontractors have been engaged by JFC for the project, and both are local Auckland based companies (Auckland Stonemasons and Vea Contractors).

· The construction tender included a target for a minimum spend of 15% of sub-contractor spend to be made with diverse suppliers. Vea Contractors are a diverse supplier and have been engaged by JFC to deliver 40% of the stonemasonry work. The development of this supplier and quality of work is being managed by the main contractor, which supports our diverse and emerging supplier procurement initiatives.

7. Streamline processes and remove barriers - can we simplify processes and remove barriers?

· Safety barrier – The inclusion of a safety barrier (handrails) was raised through the Environment Court hearing, and the Court ruled that this was a jurisdictional issue to be addressed under the Building Act 2004. Council’s preference was not to install a barrier, as this was not consistent with coastal reserve edges in Ōrewa, which typically have more natural boundaries between paths and the coastal edge. A conventional barrier (stainless steel upstands, wire and fixings) would also have a negative visual impact to reserve and beach users, as well as neighbouring properties, and would add additional cost to the project. Alternative solutions were investigated, and building consent was granted based on design solutions that include a one metre planted strip between the path and the seawall and shaping of the seawall capping stone to deter walking or sitting on the top of the seawall. This resulted in an estimated construction cost saving of $1.7 million.

· Watercare - The project includes the installation of a new watermain along the length of the seawall within the esplanade reserve. The watermain was damaged during Cyclone Gabrielle and temporarily repaired. Council have entered into an Entrusted Works Agreement with Watercare to construct the new watermain on their behalf, saving costs and additional disruption to the community by completing the work as part of the seawall and walkway project.

8. Manage consultation and consultancy carefully - are we managing consultation and consultancy costs?

· Due to the scale and value of the project, consultant designers Tonkin & Taylor (T+T) have been engaged to ensure that design risk to council is minimised, and Producer Statements are provided. Engineer to Contract, and Engineer’s Representative services have also been awarded to T+T.

· Specialist coastal engineering oversight and design advice is being provided through the Engineering, Assets and Technical Advisory team within council. The project is managed by staff within the Parks and Community Facilities Department.

· Opportunities for cost savings and value-for-money outcomes are being considered on a regular basis throughout the life of the project with both the designer and contractor.

· Consultation with the community was completed as part of the design and consenting stage, and community had the opportunity to express their views through consent hearing processes.

· The community and stakeholders are updated quarterly on project progress, through the distribution of a project newsletter.

9. Independent assessment - have we independently reviewed the project?

· There has been no independent review of the project as a whole, however an independent geotechnical design review of the seawall was completed at the 95% detailed design stage, prior to tendering. The seawall, ramps and stairs comprise approximately 70% of the project construction cost.

· In addition, specialists within the Engineering, Assets and Technical Advisory Department reviewed the structural design and geotechnical aspects.

· The Parks and Community Facilities Asbestos team reviewed and advised on asbestos discovery and disposal methodology and provided awareness training to contractors on site.

10. Continuous value assessment - are we still getting value at every stage?

· Construction savings to date include removal of the safety barrier, design of a more cost-effective culvert crossing instead of a pedestrian bridge, simplifying concrete finishes, and reuse of suitable rock and concrete material, and encapsulation of ACM on site as part of the rock wall foundation and backfill matrix.

· Construction monitoring by consultants has been undertaken more frequently at the start of the project than initially intended, to set clear expectations with the contractor regarding quality and methodology. It is anticipated that the level of monitoring required will be less as construction progresses.

· Monthly project governance meetings are held and will continue for the duration of the construction contract through to December 2025. Issues, risks and cost aspects are discussed within this forum.

5. Lessons Learned:

The project is still under construction, and a full assessment of lessons learned will be made at the completion of the project.

To date lessons have been –

· Building consent – Explore alternative design opportunities that meet building consent requirements whilst providing a more cost effective and visually appealing solution (e.g. alternative barrier design)

· Stakeholder engagement – Proactively work with key stakeholders from the start of the project to foster community support and interest in the project.

5.1 What Went Well:

With reference to the ten principles of Better Value Projects, the below are highlighted as key areas that went well.

· Design solutions – appropriate for the site, and standardised and simplified where possible.

· Procurement and supplier selection – engaged experienced and competent suppliers through a comprehensive and negotiated tender process. The construction contract was awarded for less than the engineer’s estimate.

· Local suppliers – included a target within the construction contract for a minimum spend of 15% of sub-contractor spend to be made with diverse suppliers. 40% of the stonemasonry work is being delivered by a diverse supplier, providing an opportunity for a smaller supplier to show their expertise, and for Auckland Council to expand the pool of specialist stonemasonry contractors for future projects.

· Continuous value assessment – considered minor design changes to achieve cost savings during the tender negotiation phase and start of construction through collaboration with the designer and contractor.

· Simplifying process – collaborated with Watercare to include the replacement of a damaged watermain along the length of the seawall as part of the project, to minimise disruption to residents and avoid a separate contract process.

5.2 What Could Be Improved:

The following are key areas that could have been improved.

· Independent assessments – Additional site investigation works and soil sampling prior to construction commencing may have helped to detect unsuitable materials such as asbestos containing material. The discovery of pockets of asbestos containing building materials buried within the esplanade reserve has resulted in additional cost. Methodology to safely encapsulate the material onsite behind the seawall has been developed to eliminate the cost of removal and disposal off site.

· A consideration of targeted rates could be made with further projects of this type. This focus was definitely on protecting access to the esplanade along the beach and Environment court decisions were driven by access to the beach.

5.3 Recommendations / Actions taken:

A retrospective review of this project and what could have been improved will be conducted when the project is completed.

To date, the following actions or recommendations for improvement have been identified –

· Independent assessments – Undertaking additional site investigation inspections prior to construction and utilising more widely internal specialist teams (coastal, asbestos, contaminated land and geotechnical)

· Following the large amount of asbestos containing material on the beach lead to a methodology of encapsulation behind the seawall – this may have been a different decision had the project not resulted in a grouted rock masonry seawall. This did result in a large savings rather than been diverted to a disposal site

Appendices

Additional information, pictures etc.

Figure 5: Extent of site, Marine View to Kohu Street

Revenue, Expenditure and Value Committee

20 May 2025

· Project review and lessons learnt v4

1. Executive Summary

· In late 2023/early 2024, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) was tasked by its Board with delivering marketing activity to grow pride and increase consideration of Auckland as a place to spend leisure time and money. In doing so, it also aimed to address:

· Evidenced declining sentiment towards Auckland

· Tourism and hospitality industry forecasts that autumn/winter 2024 trading would be weak

· Calls for action from the City Centre Advisory Panel (CCAP) and Destination Partnership Programme Advisory Group (DPPAG).

· Having developed a project brief, TAU was subsequently asked by Auckland Council’s City Centre Programmes team to apply for city centre targeted rate (CCTR) funding to increase city centre representation in this activity. As a result, the project was re-briefed with additional budget allocated to increasing city centre content and creative assets, increasing audience reach via an augmented media buy and extending time in market until September. As a requirement of CCTR funding, Auckland Council, Heart of the City (HoTC) and Karangahape Road Business Association (KBA) were informed and consulted through key stages of project development and delivery.

· By working to halt – and even reverse – declines in perception among both Aucklanders and those within drive or fly distance of the region, TAU aimed to improve sentiment as a precursor to time and money spent enjoying Auckland. It set out to increase the likelihood that people would recommend the city and, ultimately, spend leisure time and discretionary income in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Perception and the sales funnel

Perception: how people see and feel about Auckland.

Sentiment: a measure of how positive, negative or neutral people feel about Auckland.

Perception and sentiment: Are connected and together influence tourism, hospitality and other discretionary spend

This marketing activity ran for 12 weeks in 7 markets with post-activity research conducted by an external company concluding it was successful in positively influencing sentiment and perceptions among both Aucklanders and those in domestic fly/drive markets. Those who saw the activity rated Auckland more favourably with all measured perceptions scoring higher. They were also more likely to recommend Auckland as a place to visit:

· 48% felt more positive towards Auckland and none felt less positive

· 60% took action e.g. considered spending money to enjoy Auckland and/or considered a trip to Auckland

· 87% took away key messages e.g. ‘Auckland is an ideal destination for a short holiday’

See Appendix 1.

· Cumulatively more than 2 million^{^[1]} Kiwis from Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Northland, Bay of Plenty, Waikato and Auckland were exposed to the activity’s messages.

· Despite this, negative media commentary^{^[2]}and associated LGOIMA requests impacted the project rollout meaning plans to derive additional value from the approach were halted. An early briefing with the Mayor’s Office and elected members may have mitigated this.

· Among lessons learnt are that:

· TAU needs to clarify with Auckland Council its remit to work at the top of the destination ‘sales funnel’ (i.e. improve sentiment and increase consideration of Auckland as a precursor to visitation and sales). The CCO Reform may provide a vehicle for resolving this through the destination strategy refresh proposed to be led by Council in collaboration with TAU.

· TAU will, in future, engage with the Mayor’s Office, Lead Councilor and/or Chair CCO Oversight Committee prior to significant or markedly different activity going live. This engagement has already commenced with the early presentation in Apr 2025 of the CCTR-funded marketing activity for winter 2025.

· With support from the Mayor’s Office, Lead Councilor and/or Chair CCO Oversight Committee for future activity, TAU would seek to proactively promote the purpose and nature of its effort via public relations in order to build broader understanding of the job to be done and the approach chosen. This practice is common to other cities and their agencies, including Wellington^{^[3]}and Rotorua^{^[4]}.

· While the City Centre Programmes team’s upweight in 2024 resulted in a combined spend that was within TAU’s DFA and was in line with industry standards for the activity being delivered, the total investment was considered by some to be unacceptably high. Considering this, and in the current context, a similar opportunity to request CCTR funding to upweight winter 2025 activity has not been taken and caution will be exercised in future.

· Finally, while further lessons were learnt through post-activity research as to what was performing well and what could be improved in future iterations of the campaign, these have not been applied as, considering political criticism via the media and the uncertainty of CCO Reform through much of 2024, the decision was made to stop further activity phases.

2. Project Overview

2.1 Problem Statement

· Auckland has a reputational problem that risks negatively impacting consumers’ decision-making on where to spend their leisure time and money. With a longstanding negative narrative playing out through the media and popular culture, Auckland has significant work to do to counter both old stereotypes and new, post-Covid criticisms. This project sought to address a deep-seated problem for the region that limits Auckland’s attractiveness and, in turn, endangers its vibrancy, vitality and viability. This problem is most critically felt within Auckland’s city centre and among the region’s tourism and hospitality businesses where it is not just a reputational problem, but an economic one too.

2.2 Project Scope and Objectives

· The project aimed to:

· Positively shift sentiment toward Auckland

· Increase people’s preparedness to spend leisure time in the region

· Increase people’s likelihood to recommend Auckland.

· Target markets were defined as locals and New Zealanders, aged 25-55:

· Aucklanders – NZ’s largest population with disposable income above the national average^{^[5]}

· Fly – New Zealanders in main urban areas with direct flights to Auckland.

· Drive – New Zealanders within drive-time of Auckland

Scope	Deviations	Comments
Creative – strategy, concepting, production, licensing and delivery of 80+ outputs	Costs increased by $12,865.60	Offset by decreased media costs
Media – strategy, targeting, recommendations, planning, buying and reporting	Costs decreased by ~$13,000 Start of media schedule delayed from Apr–Jul 2024 to Jun–Sep 2024	Offset by increased creative costs Stakeholders supported extension of activity further into winter trading period
Microsite build, content creation, social media amplification, design and production support	None	Delivered in-house

2.3 Options Analysis

· Do nothing – negative Auckland narrative would continue unchecked, risking further deterioration of Auckland’s visitor economy and engendering a loss of confidence from the region’s business community, perceived inaction from TAU specifically and ACG generally.

· Take a safer and/or cheaper creative route – would not achieve desired cut-through, would be lost in the crowd, wouldn’t maximise return on media investment.

· Take production entirely in-house – internal teams already working at capacity, not all skills required exist in-house.

· Take affirmative action – route chosen and encouraged by TAU’s Board, the City Centre Programmes team and stakeholders.

3. Project Execution

3.1 Timeline

See Appendix 2 for detailed timeline

Schedule	Original date	Actual date	Comments
Project tasked by TAU Board and brief developed	-	Dec 2023-Jan 2024	Board strategy day / 1:1 meetings with Board member with marketing expertise / monthly CE reporting to Board
Internal ACG engagement	-	Late Jan 2024	Engagement with AC Marketing and City Centre Programmes teams
Brief presented at internal GTM and suppliers engaged	-	Feb 2024	Draft brief peer reviewed at TAU Go-To-Market meeting / project briefed via ACG Universal Brief to ACG panel suppliers
CCTR funding application submitted	-	21 Feb 2024	Funding application submitted at AC City Centre Progammes team’s request
CCTR funding confirmed, project suppliers rebriefed	-	1 Mar 2024	AC City Centre Programmes team invests additional $300k
Creative development	-	Apr 2024	Review of long-list and short-list creative ideas / chosen direction shared with DFA
Creative production and media planning	-	May 2024	Creative production undertaken / draft media plan reviewed, amended and final media space booked
Advisory to Governing Body, Local Board Chairs, TAU Board	-	28 May 2024	Briefing included in fortnightly Tātaki Update email newsletter to TAU Board and AC elected members
Media live – see Appendix 3 for media schedule	20 May 2024	10 Jun 2024	Timeline delayed due to: · Addition of CCTR funding and resulting need to rebrief project · Production requirements · Desire from city centre stakeholders to see activity extend later into winter
CE memo to elected members and in-person briefing to Mayor’s Office	-	Jul 2024	TAU memo to elected members / recap included in Tātaki Update / in-person briefing to Mayor’s Office on purpose, budget, timings and creative
Activity ends	30 June 2024	1 Sep 2024	Timeline delayed, as above
Briefing to Mayor’s Office	-	9 Sep 2024	In-person briefing on project outcomes
Internal engagement / reporting to Governing Body, Local Board Chairs, TAU Board	-	w/c 9 Sep 2024 onwards	Reporting shared with AC Marketing and City Centre Programmes / project outcomes reported via Tātaki Update
Media reporting / debrief to GTM / accountablity reporting submitted	-	Oct 2024	Media supplier presentation of reporting / post-activity debrief at Go-To-Market / reporting to City Centre Programmes team

3.2 Budget

Budget	Planned total	Actual total	Variance
Overall creative and media budget	$740,000 (incl. $300,000 CCTR) (Creative $293,000 and Media $447,000)	$737,208.58 (Creative $292,866.60 and Media $444,341.98)	$2,791.42
Ongoing costs	N/A	N/A	N/A
Increased spend notes	No overall increased spend
Savings notes	Creative · The creative services supplier for this project is one of three creative agencies on ACG’s approved panel for ‘Creative and Strategic Services’. As a result, their work is governed by a Master Services Agreement that includes contracted pricing schedules for hourly rates. · Savings were achieved through a further 36.75% discounting of strategy, creative, client service and project management costs, along with creative choices that included use of non-professional lead talent, use of own team for extras and street locations. · Investment was maximised by negotiating two-days’ access to talent in order that TAU’s in-house teams could capture additional content for aligned major events promotion. · Further savings on creative were delivered by TAU undertaking work in-house with its own teams delivering graphic design, website build and development, and digital and social content services. Media · Savings and efficiencies on media costs were achieved by working with ACG’s sole supplier of ‘Media Buying, Strategy & Planning services’ who are contracted on a Master Services Agreement. · By buying for the ACG collective, the supplier secures preferential rates negotiated annually with media companies. Rates are available to TAU. · An additional $45,000+ of media value was received at no cost through TAU’s own partnership activity, enabling the project to reach further with no increased expense.

3.3 Challenges Faced and Solutions Implemented

Challenges

Context/Solutions

Negative media commentary resulting from elected member criticism

· https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/07/11/auckland-ad-campaign-embarrassing-and-expensive-says-mayor/^{^[6]}

· Solution was to deliver only what had already been committed, to halt plans still in development and withdraw briefs for future stages of activity

LGOIMAs received from NZTU (x2) and RNZ (x1)

· Information was prepared and responses provided on the following dates:

· New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union – 30 Jul

Request for total budget, advertising and creative costs, and cost-benefit analysis

· New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union – 8 Aug

Request for details of any feedback on campaign received by TAU from councillors and local boards

· RNZ – 29 Oct

Request for breakdown of costs, activities and total cost of campaign – resultant coverage on RNZ, NZH, RNZ panel debate and bFM.

· As above, solution was to deliver only what had already been committed, to stop plans still in development and withdraw briefs for future activity

4. Assessment against 10 Delivery Principles

1. Early problem definition and robust value assessment

· Initial problem definition was undertaken in Sep 2023 through a research review that highlighted a troubling picture for Auckland across multiple studies and metrics, including years of declining pride, declining appeal and propensity to visit, declines in Net Promoter Score and a significant decline in the Tourism Sentiment Index. See Appendix 4.

· Further highlighting the problem, in late 2023 and early 2024 TAU’s monthly Destination Overview reports consistently showed domestic guest nights in commercial accommodation were down:

· October 2023 – down 8.7% MOM

· November 2023 – down 3.1% MOM

· December 2023 – down 7% MOM

· January 2024 – down 7.8% MOM

· February 2024 –down 5.6% MOM

· March – down 9.3% MOM

· In parallel, TAU’s Board, the destination industry (attractions, retailers, food & beverage, transport, accommodation providers) and CCAP were vocal as to their concerns for the economic performance of Auckland heading into autumn/winter and expected TAU to act. See Appendix 4.

· In retrospect, despite not being a formal requirement before this electoral term, an early briefing to the Mayor’s Office to outline these problems, concerns and expectations may have confirmed TAU’s remit to assist the industry to improve Auckland’s economic performance through this activity.

2. Rightsizing our investment

· This type of project is, by nature, bespoke being designed to address a particular need at a particular time with a particular audience. As such, it is not off the shelf. Project assets were designed to run midwinter and to address a long-lasting post-COVID context exacerbated by a cost-of-living crisis. With local and domestic audiences unlikely to be convinced by traditional tourism imagery, a new solution was required that reflected time of year, audience knowledge of Auckland, and the economic realities for businesses and individuals. To be noticed, the approach needed to be fresh and different, and TAU was encouraged to be bold and use humour to achieve effect.

· Project costs were comparable with those of Wellington city and regional councils’ domestic campaign – ‘You Would in Wellington’ – which ran in the New Zealand market at the same time. These costs are reported as $200,000 creative and $350,000 media. WellingtonNZ has subsequently reprised this campaign deriving further value from investment in the creative platform.

· While a reduced investment in the creative component of the project – e.g. removing video from the deliverables – would have resulted in a lower-cost approach, it would also have significantly reduced the project’s reach and cut off access to the largest audiences. Some talent costs may have been saved by casting a non-Finn as talent, however to fake ethnicity was inappropriate.

3. Increase use of standard designs

· Project costs were managed by producing four key visuals that were used in multiple formats, sizes and edits to result in multiple outputs. One video shoot in five locations over one day resulted in multiple edits, including a 60” long-form video, 30” hero video, and 3x 15” and 3x 6” cutdown videos.

· TAU’s own team received access to all project outputs and files enabling in-house production of additional materials to extend activity. Leveraging these, TAU’s in-house team created new graphics, additional social media posts and videos, built a web microsite and created online content.

· While ongoing use of these creative assets would have spread costs over multiple media plans and timeframes, increasing effectiveness, they have not been reused for the reasons stated.

A person sitting in front of a boat

Description automatically generated

4. Setting maximum prices

· Both suppliers selected for the project were already contracted to ACG on Master Service Agreements having been appointed to the Group via RFP processes.

· As such, pricing schedules for the media agency’s fees and creative agency’s hourly rates were fixed with savings and efficiencies having been built in through ACG negotiation and contracting.

· The creative agency further discounted its fees for strategy, creative, client service and project management by 36.75% to stay within the fixed project budget. Creative agency billings and hours worked are reported six-monthly to ACG as part of contract management processes.

· Both suppliers were provided with a maximum project price upfront and in the original brief. Both were subsequently advised of a fixed price increase following receipt of additional CCTR funding.

· Over the course of the project, there was one cost increase in the creative component, which was offset by an equivalent decrease in the media component. As a result, the total project was returned on budget ($737,208.58 vs. $740,000).

5. Factor in past supplier performance

· The supplier of media services for this project is ACG’s Sole Agency for ‘Media Buying, Media Strategy and Media Planning’. They have been awarded CAANZ Media Agency of the Year, IAB New Zealand Digital Agency of the Year and Google Performance Agency of the Year.

· The supplier of creative services for this project is one of three creative agencies on ACG’s approved panel for ‘Creative and Strategic Services’. Of these three agencies, the supplier was selected based on the match between the project’s requirements and the ‘Supplier Description’ within the ACG Agency Panels and Preferred Suppliers Guide – Staff, which states:

· Experienced delivering effective small and large-scale campaigns for government agencies and associated non-governmental organisations

· Disruptive thinking, purpose-driven and focused on behaviour change campaigns.

They are a past Australia/New Zealand Boutique Agency of the Year and have received more than 100 local and international awards in the past two years.

6. Focus on local suppliers

· The media supplier has more than 80 staff and offices in Auckland and Wellington. The creative supplier is a New Zealand-owned, multi-award-winning agency based in Auckland.

7. Streamline processes and remove barriers

· TAU had well-defined project processes in place, including weekly stand-ups, weekly recording of tasks completed and blocks, and project presentations with peer reviews at briefing and completion stages. Decision-making was collaborative with decision-makers attending all key project gateways.

· Standard procurement processes were followed, and suppliers were already contracted to ACG via MSAs having been appointed through RFPs. Appropriate DFA approvals were received. The standard ACG Universal Brief template was used in briefing creative and media suppliers.

· Updates on the progress of the project were included in monthly Chief Executive reports to the Board and elected members were updated via the regular Tātaki Update newsletter. However, negative political commentary, media coverage and LGOIMA responses created a barrier to leveraging the project further, reducing value to be derived.

8. Manage consultation and consultancy carefully

· Project scope and budget was amended once to reflect the allocation of additional CCTR funding. There were no other changes to overall scope or budget.

· There was one increase (of less than 5%) to creative costs which was offset by a decrease of an equivalent value in media costs ensuring total project costs remained within agreed limits.

· Project management and additional creative outputs were delivered by TAU’s own team in a hybrid approach to production and execution. This allowed internal capabilities to limit external costs.

9. Independent assessment

· Project impact and effectiveness was reviewed through independent quantitative research with a survey sample representative of the target population^{^[7]}.

· This concluded that the project had been a success and positively influenced perceptions of Auckland among both Aucklanders and the domestic market. In addition, it found the project was driving recommendation, well-liked and considered unique.

10. Continuous value assessment.

· Comprehensive project updates, ongoing reporting of reach and engagement, and post-project reporting of impact and effectiveness were provided to in-house peer review groups, ACG and external stakeholders. This included consulting HOTC & KBA on key decisions, e.g. time in market.

· Ongoing monitoring of digital media performance was undertaken with both TAU’s in-house team and the media supplier providing weekly reporting, which showed activity performing strongly against benchmarks. Ongoing optimisations were made – for example, by introducing a frequency cap on digital content served to a user to prevent ad fatigue and enhance campaign effectiveness.

· Accountability reporting was provided at project’s end as a formal requirement of CCTR funding.

A body of water with a surfboard on the beach

Description automatically generated

5. Lessons Learned

5.1 What Went Well

Research base	Strong research base of evidence and insight that drove problem definition
Stakeholder alignment	Strong alignment across internal and external stakeholders on need for action Additional stakeholder wanted to invest
Project management	Well-defined project processes and standard procurement processes with suppliers contracted to ACG via MSAs
Hybrid approach	TAU and supplier teams worked efficiently and in hybrid to deliver on budget
Reach	Cumulatively, more than two million Kiwis were exposed to messages promoting Auckland
Effectiveness	Activity successfully met objective of lifting sentiment towards Auckland Those who saw activity rated Auckland more favourably and were more likely to recommend Auckland as a place to visit with all measured perceptions scoring higher 60% took action and 87% took away key messages
Best in class	Likeability and uniqueness outperformed benchmark of 146 ads from established brands

5.2 What Could Be Improved

Political engagement	An early briefing to the Mayor’s Office, Lead Councillor and/or Chair CCO Oversight Committee may mitigate negative political feedback via the media and establish support for marketing activity in advance.
Strategic direction	CCO Reform and subsequent Council direction on a refreshed destination strategy should provide clarity on TAU’s remit, with political support, to promote Auckland and work at the top end of the sales funnel (i.e. sentiment).
Audience testing	Audience testing would give confidence that the creative solution is the right one (or not) and allow evidence for the effectiveness of creative work prior to it reaching market. However, this will increase delivery costs and time – in this case, meaning activity would have missed the critical winter period.
Campaign leveraging	With some or all the above in place, TAU would hope future campaigns may be iterated through multiple phases allowing cost per execution to reduce. In this instance, unrealised value saw: · Plans with Visit Finland for reciprocal social media and PR activity halted · A second phase of the project being withdrawn from agencies with talent stood down · A media pitch on the economy of happiness (ref Finland^{^[8]} & Christchurch^{^[9]}) dropped · Supplier pull back from a planned media release to their industry

5.3 Recommendations

Lesson	Recommendation
Lack of alignment on TAU’s remit to improve sentiment for the region	· TAU to work with Auckland Council on destination strategy refresh and establish TAU’s remit for sentiment activity
Requirement and means for engaging with elected members unclear	· TAU to engage with Mayor’s Office, lead Councillor and/or Chair CCO Oversight Committee prior to embarking on activity that significantly deviates from prior practice
Latitude for boundary-pushing creative work unclear	· As above. · Consider audience testing with target markets before committing to a creative direction to provide independent assessment and ensure effectiveness (noting this will inflate project costs and extend timelines).

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Executive Summary: Project impact and effectiveness

· Post-activity research conducted by an external company concluded the project was successful in positively influencing sentiment and perceptions among both Aucklanders and those in domestic fly/drive markets. Those who saw the activity:

· Rated Auckland more favourably with all measured perceptions scoring higher.

· Were more likely to recommend Auckland as a place to visit.

· Were more likely to agree ‘Auckland is for people like me’, ‘Auckland is really on the way up’, and ‘I often hear people talking about Auckland in a positive way’.

· Despite being in the market for a relatively short period, the campaign achieved strong recall with 30% of the target audience recognising it.

· The campaign evoked emotions with 81% associating at least one key outtake (top associations ‘quirky’, ‘different’, ‘funny’), plus among those who saw it:

· 48% felt more positive towards Auckland and none felt less positive

· 60% took action e.g. considered spending money to enjoy Auckland and/or considered a trip to Auckland

· 87% took away key messages e.g. ‘Auckland is an ideal destination for a short holiday’

· The activity well-liked, especially among Aucklanders, with likeability and uniqueness outperforming a benchmark of 146 ads from established brands.

Appendix 2 – Project Execution: Detailed timeline

Schedule	Original date	Actual / Scheduled date	Comments
Project tasked by TAU Board and brief developed	-	Dec 2023-Jan 2024	Board strategy day cemented need for affirmative action Monthly CE reporting on progress 1:1 meetings with Board member who has specialist marketing expertise
Weekly project updates	-	11 Dec 2024 on	Project updates provided every Monday
Internal engagement	-	Late Jan 2024	Engagement with AC Marketing and City Centre Programmes to ensure project visibility and alignment
Draft project brief presented at GTM	-	7 Feb 2024	Draft brief presented and peer reviewed at regular TAU Go-To-Market meeting
Project suppliers briefed in writing	-	9 Feb 2024	Project briefed using standard ACG Universal Brief to ACG panel suppliers Univeral Brief approved by correct DFAs
Project suppliers briefed in person	-	21 Feb 2024
CCTR funding application submitted	-	21 Feb 2024	Funding application submitted at AC City Centre Progammes team’s request
CCTR funding confirmed	-	1 Mar 2024	Auckland Council City Centre Programmes team invests further $300k
Project suppliers advised of funding outcome and rebriefed	-	1 Mar 2024
Creative session 1	-	27 Mar 2024	Review of long-list creative ideas
Creative session 2	-	22 Apr 2024	Review of short-list creative ideas
Creative direction confirmed	-	24 Apr 2024	Direction chosen and shared with DFA
Creative production	-	May 2024
Draft media plan received	-	7 May 2024	Draft media plan undergoes review with requests for optimisations made
Final media plan approved	-	28 May 2024	Media space booked
Activity advised to Governing Body, Local Board Chairs, TAU Board	-	28 May 2024	Briefing included in fortnightly Tātaki Update email newsletter to TAU Board and AC elected members
Media live – see media schedule below	20 May 2024	10 Jun 2024	Timeline delayed due to: · Addition of CCTR funding and resulting need to rebrief project · Production requirements · Desire from city centre project stakeholders to see activity extend later into winter
CE memo to elected members	-	1 Jul 2024	TAU memo sent to elected members prior to heaviest media activity inc. project overview, budget, timings and links to view
Activity recapped to Governing Body, Local Board Chairs, TAU Board	-	3 Jul 2024	Recap included in fortnightly Tātaki Update
Briefing to Mayor’s Office	-	17 Jul 2024	In-person briefing inc. project overview, budget, timings and creative
Media ends	30 June 2024	1 Sep 2024	As above
Briefing to Mayor’s Office	-	9 Sep 2024	In-person briefing on project outcomes
Internal engagement	-	w/c 9 Sep 2024 onwards	Activity reporting shared with AC Marketing and City Centre Programmes
Activity reporting to Governing Body, Local Board Chairs, TAU Board	-	17 Sep 2024	Project outcomes reported via Tātaki Update
Media reporting	-	3 Oct 2024	Media supplier presentation of project reporting
Debrief presented to GTM	-	29 Oct 2024	Post-activity debrief at Go-To-Market meeting
Accountablity reporting submitted	-	29 Oct 2024	Activity reporting supplied to City Centre Programmes team

Appendix 3 – Project Execution: Media schedule

Appendix 4 – Assessment against 10 Delivery Principles: Early problem definition

· Initial problem definition undertaken in Sep 2023 through a research review highlighted:

· Auckland Council’s Citizens Insight Monitor showed years of declining agreement with ‘I feel a sense of pride living in Auckland’. By Q2 2023, disagreement with the statement was at the highest level (30%) since the survey began in 2015.

· Auckland Council’s Quality of Life Survey 2022 recorded a drop in agreement that Auckland is a ‘great place to live’ down from 81% in 2020 to 75% in 2022.

· The Angus & Associates Market Perceptions Report to June 2022 showed declining appeal of Auckland and declining propensity to visit Auckland among domestic markets in line with increasing negative perceptions about Auckland.

· In July 2023, TRA research into the domestic visitor market for Auckland identified barriers to visitation, including ‘there’s too much traffic’ (51%), ‘it’s expensive’ (46%), ‘it’s too busy/crowded’ (45%) and ‘it’s hard to get around Auckland’ (36%).

· Brand health research via Kantar in 2023 showed Auckland with a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of -13 (comparable to 2022) versus an NPS of +6 in 2019, +4 in 2020, -1 in 2021.

· The Tourism Sentiment Index for Q1 2023 showed significant decline with Auckland seeing a -24% YOY decrease in sentiment compared to the global average of 6%, and a -18% decrease QOQ behind the global average of 3%.

· Quantitative research in Apr 2024 showed Auckland residents (a valuable leisure market representing 33.2% of New Zealand's population^{^[10]} with an average annual household disposable income 15.4% higher than the national average^{^[11]}) feeling less positive towards Auckland than those elsewhere in the country.

It identified the high cost of living in Auckland posed challenges for residents, Auckland was perceived as stagnant and not progressing, and perceptions were entrenched. This supported the project’s approach to include Aucklanders alongside fly/drive markets within the target audience. The study’s insight also informed the focus on low-cost Auckland experiences, which were foregrounded through the creative.

· Alongside this, new research pointed to the correlation between perception and economic outcome for international cities showing that a small increase in perception triggers a substantial increase in the attraction of tourism, investment and talent. This research by Bloom Consulting shows:

· For Auckland, 0.1 perception increase is +12% international tourism receipts

· For Auckland, 0.1 perception increase is +14% FDI inflows

· For Auckland, 0.1 perception increase is +15% migrant population

And that:

· Perception accounts for 23% of tourism receipts.

· While this research looked at the value of perception to Auckland’s international tourism receipts, the project team’s expert opinion is that a similar correlation exists between domestic perceptions and domestic tourism receipts. Domestic tourism contributes billions of dollars ($2.6bn in FY23 and $2.4bn in FY24) to Auckland making this decline a critical concern for the region’s economy.

· Against this backdrop of negative sentiment, correlation between perception and tourism receipts, and challenges in Auckland’s domestic tourism market, stakeholders aligned in their calls for action.

· In Nov 2023, TAU’s Board advocated for an Auckland campaign that would lift perceptions of the region and return confidence and pride to the city.

· In Dec 2023, TAU was asked to include updates on destination marketing in the highlight report for the Feb 2024 CCAP meeting and to prepare a discussion paper on destination marketing for Apr 2024, with the panel indicating it was looking to increase investment in city centre promotion.

· In Jan 2024, TAU met with AC marketing and City Centre Programmes teams, as well as with HoTC, to outline the emerging project and ensure it would not duplicate or conflict with their plans. In all cases, strong support and encouragement for the activity was received.

· At its 1 Feb 2024 meeting, members of the DPPAG noted the slowdown in domestic leisure discretionary spend, the lack of events seeing a slowdown in accommodation bookings, the forthcoming months were a concern, and that winter looked soft and troubling, with businesses reporting a drop-off over January likely attributable to declines in domestic visitation.

· In response, TAU developed a project brief and, in mid-Feb 2024 commenced briefing of suppliers.

Revenue, Expenditure and Value Committee

20 May 2025

Komiti mō te Moni Whiwhi, mō te Whakapaunga me te Uara / Revenue, Expenditure and Value Committee

Forward Work Programme 2025

This committee deals with assisting the council to be cost effective and make financial savings. The full terms of reference can be found here: Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference

Area of work and Lead Department	Pūnga / Reason for work	Committee role (whakatau / decision and/or tika / direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2025
Area of work and Lead Department	Pūnga / Reason for work		Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Value for Money programme
Section 17A reviews Value for Money	Council has a legal obligation under section 17A to review the cost-effectiveness of the delivery of our services	To receive updates and make decisions on the program of s17A reviews. · Marina Ownership Framework review update (April 2025) · Property Framework (May 2025) · Stormwater contracts (May 2025 · Building Consents review update (June 2025) · Legal services (September 2025) Progress to date: Update and approval of terms of reference – February 2025 link to decision Section 17A Review of Marinas – April 2025 link to decision
Group Insurance
Insurance Strategy and Placement Risk and Assurance	Approve insurance strategy and then note outcomes	Council Group Insurance Renewal (March) Council Group Post Insurance Renewal Update (July) Progress to date: CONFIDENTIAL: Insurance Renewal Update 2025-2026 – 18 March 2025 link to decision
Service optimisation and reviews of value / effectiveness / performance
Service and financial performance reviews	The committee has responsibility for reviewing outcomes and value obtained for spend as well as conducting reviews of the service and financial performance of individual council and CCO departments.	To undertake monthly service and financial performance reviews on service areas and departments, including: · Building Consents · Waste Solutions · Environmental Services · Licensing and Compliance · Community Wellbeing · Policy · Group Strategy, Transformations and Partnerships · Healthy Waters · Auckland Emergency Management · Governance and Engagement · Pools and Leisure · Group Treasury · Communications and Marketing · Chief Sustainability Office Further reviews to be confirmed. Progress to date: CONFIDENTIAL: Building Consents Department Service and Financial Performance review – 18 March 2025 link to decision Confidential: Environmental Services Department service and financial performance review – 15 April 2025 link to decision Confidential: Waste Solutions Service and Financial Performance review – 15 April 2025 link to decision
Group Shared Services		To receive quarterly updates on the Group Shared Services program Progress to date: Update received February 2025 link to decision
Better Value Projects		To receive updates on implementation of the Better Value Projects improvement program Progress to date: Update received February 2025 link to decision Better Value Projects update – 18 March 2025 link to decision Better Value Projects update – April 2025 link to decision
Billing		Te receive an update on the work being done on streamlining Council’s billing systems Report on outcomes of billing systems work
Savings updates
Savings updates	Quarterly savings update	Quarter 3 – May Quarter 4 – August Progress to date: Quarter 2 – February Update received February 2025 link to decision
Procurement
Waste Solutions	Procurement plan for the supply of refuse and recycling bins and bin recall, retrofitting and distribution services	Decision: to approve the procurement plan Progress to date: Options for supply, maintenance and distribution of refuse and recycling bins contracts – 18 March 2025 link to decision Procurement plan for supply, maintenance and distribution of refuse and recycling bins – 18 March 2025 link to decision CONFIDENTIAL: Supply, maintenance and distribution of refuse and recycling bins contracts: Further options analysis pre-procurement – 18 March 2025 link to decision CONFIDENTIAL: Procurement plan for supply, maintenance and distribution of refuse and recycling bins – 18 March 2024 link to decision
Healthy Waters	Healthy Waters Maintenance Contracts Variation – Making Space for Water	Decision: Approval of variation to add scope for Making Space for water and contingency for future years Progress to date: Confidential: Variation for the central, northern and southern operations and maintenance contracts – 15 April 2025 link to decision
Healthy Waters	Healthy Waters - Small Water and Wastewater maintenance Procurement Award	Decision: Approval of Supplier Recommendation report for regional SWWS contracts for 5+3 years Progress to date: Supplier recommendation for regional small waters and wastewater systems operations and maintenance contracts – 18 March 2025 link to decision CONFIDENTIAL: Supplier recommendation for regional small waters and waste water systems – 18 March 2025 link to decision

Completed

Area of work and Lead Department	Committee role	Whakatau / Decision
Pools and Leisure and Early Childhood Education - Savings update	Breakdown of savings and benefits expected to be achieved this financial year for both ECE and Pools and Leisure	Update received February 2025 link to decision

[1] Number of unique individuals exposed to the campaign at least once. Reach is an industry-standard measure of effectiveness.

[5] Aucklanders account for 33.2% of New Zealand's population with an average annual household disposable income 15.4% higher than the national average.

[7] Total sample n=514 (fly/drive n= 254, residents n= 260), +/-4.4 margin of error at 95% level of confidence. Representative sample of all Aucklanders and of fly/drive audiences considering NZ travel and non-rejectors of Auckland travel, aged 18-64. Data post-weighted to ensure representative of region’s size, age (18+) and gender distribution. 10-minute online survey conducted by independent research agency with respondents recruited from Dynata.

[8] https://www.visitfinland.com/en/find-your-inner-finn/happiness-inspiration/

[9] https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/350317503/christchurch-named-new-zealands-happiest-city