Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Thursday, 16 December 2021

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 December 2021

COUNCIL MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Name	Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)	Declaration of Interests	Nature of Potential Interest	Member's Proposed Management Plan
Hon Mayor John Carter QSO	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Program
Hon Mayor John Carter QSO	Carter Family Trust
Deputy Mayor Ann Court	Waipapa Business Association	Member		Case by case
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Shareholder	Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer	Case by case
	Kerikeri Irrigation	Supplies my water		No
	District Licensing	N/A	N/A	N/A
	Ann Court Trust	Private	Private	N/A
	Waipapa Rotary	Honorary member	Potential community funding submitter	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner Shareholder	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Property on Daroux Dr, Waipapa	Financial interest	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Flowers and gifts	Ratepayer 'Thankyou'	Bias/ Pre-determination?	Declare to Governance
	Coffee and food	Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage	Bias or pre-determination	Case by case
	Staff	N/A	Suggestion of not being impartial or pre-determined!	Be professional, due diligence, weigh the evidence. Be thorough, thoughtful, considered impartial and balanced. Be fair.
	Warren Pattinson	My husband is a builder and may do work for Council staff		Case by case
Ann Court - Partner	Warren Pattinson Limited	Director	Building Company. FNDC is a regulator	Remain at arm’s length
	Air NZ	Shareholder	None	None
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Builder	FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer.	Apply arm’s length rules
	Property on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner	Any proposed FNDC capital work in the vicinity or rural plan change. Maybe a link to policy development.	Would not submit. Rest on a case by case basis.
David Clendon	Chairperson – He Waka Eke Noa Charitable Trust	None		Declare if any issue arises
	Member of Vision Kerikeri	None		Declare if any issue arrises
	Joint owner of family home in Kerikeri	Hall Road, Kerikeri
David Clendon – Partner	Resident Shareholder on Kerikeri Irrigation
David Collard	Snapper Bonanza 2011 Limited	45% Shareholder and Director
David Collard	Trustee of Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Council delegate to this board
Felicity Foy	Flick Trustee Ltd	I am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties Seaview Road – Cable Bay, and Allen Bell Drive - Kaitaia.
	Elbury Holdings Limited	This company is directed by my parents Fiona and Kevin King.	This company owns several dairy and beef farms, and also dwellings on these farms. The Farms and dwellings are located in the Far North at Kaimaumau, Bird Road/Sandhills Rd, Wireless Road/ Puckey Road/Bell Road, the Awanui Straight and Allen Bell Drive.
	Foy Farms Partnership	Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm on Church Road, Kaingaroa
	Foy Farms Rentals	Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 7 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and 2 dwellings on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 1 property on North Road, Kaitaia, one title contains a cell phone tower.
	King Family Trust	This trust owns several titles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane.	These trusts own properties in the Far North.
	112 Commerce Street Holdings Ltd	Owner of commercial property in Commerce Street Kaitaia.
	Foy Property Management Ltd	Owner of company that manages properties owned by Foy Farms Rentals and Flick Family Trust.
	Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16	I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends
	Shareholder of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Director of Coastal Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Friends with some FNDC employees
Mate Radich	No form received
Rachel Smith	Friends of Rolands Wood Charitable Trust	Trustee
	Mid North Family Support	Trustee
	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member
	Vision Kerikeri	Financial Member
Rachel Smith (Partner)	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member and Treasurer
	Vision Kerikeri	Financial Member
	Town and General Groundcare Limited	Director, Shareholder
Kelly Stratford	KS Bookkeeping and Administration	Business Owner, provides book keeping, administration and development of environmental management plans	None perceived	Step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts
	Waikare Marae Trustees	Trustee	Maybe perceived conflicts	Case by case basis
	Bay of Islands College	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Karetu School	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Māori title land – Moerewa and Waikare	Beneficiary and husband is a shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Sister is employed by Far North District Council			Will not discuss work/governance mattes that are confidential
	Gifts - food and beverages	Residents and ratepayers may ‘shout’ food and beverage	Perceived bias or predetermination	Case by case basis
	Taumarere Counselling Services	Advisory Board Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting
	Sport Northland	Board Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting
	He Puna Aroha Putea Whakapapa	Trustee	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	Kawakawa Returned Services Association	Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	Whangaroa Returned Services Association	Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	National Emergency Management Advisor Committee	Member		Case by case basis
	Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi	Tribal affiliate member	As a descendent of Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi Council relations	Declare a perceived conflict should there appear to be one
	Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāti Hine	Tribal affiliate member	Could have a perceived conflict of interest	Declare a perceived conflict should I determine there is a conflict
	Kawakawa Business and Community Association	Member		Will declare a perceived conflict should there appear to be one
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Chef and Barista	Opua Store	None perceived
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Māori title land – Moerewa	Shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict of interest I would step aside from decision making
Moko Tepania	Teacher	Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Kaikohe.	Potential Council funding that will benefit my place of employment.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Chairperson	Te Reo o Te Tai Tokerau Trust.	Potential Council funding for events that this trust runs.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa	As a descendent of Te Rarawa I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rarawa Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa	As a descendent of Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Kahukuraariki Trust Board	As a descendent of Kahukuraariki Trust Board I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Kahukuraariki Trust Board Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi	As a descendent of Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
John Vujcich	Board Member	Pioneer Village	Matters relating to funding and assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Waitukupata Forest Ltd	Potential for council activity to directly affect its assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Rural Service Solutions Ltd	Matters where council regulatory function impact of company services	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Kaikohe (Rau Marama) Community Trust	Potential funder	Declare interest and abstain
	Partner	MJ & EMJ Vujcich	Matters where council regulatory function impacts on partnership owned assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Member	Kaikohe Rotary Club	Potential funder, or impact on Rotary projects	Declare interest and abstain
	Member	New Zealand Institute of Directors	Potential provider of training to Council	Declare a Conflict of Interest
	Member	Institute of IT Professionals	Unlikely, but possible provider of services to Council	Declare a Conflict of Interest

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 December 2021

5.3 Programme Darwin - Programme and Funding Update

File Number: A3458979

Author: Chris Grobler, Programme Manager EAM

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to provide Elected Members with an update on the status of Programme Darwin, to recommend a way forward for the accelerated delivery of the Asset Management System (AMS) Project, and to seek approval for additional funding to enable the practicable delivery of the overall Programme.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Programme Darwin was established to stand-up a system that will analyse and manage FNDC’s asset information within a single source, configured to support a dynamic planning, operating, and reporting environment. Fundamentally, it set out to provide the information infrastructure to capture, store and interrogate the attribute, condition, and performance data (within a structured asset hierarchy) needed as the basis for all future investment planning and operating activities.

· Council has previously provided endorsement of the asset management transformation programme of work which launched programme Darwin.

· Programme governance provided through the establishment of the Darwin programme steering group (PSG).

· The attachment to this report provides Elected Members with an update on the progress within the programme of work.

· The complexity of the data cleansing and migration from the existing Interim Asset Management Database into IPS (the new asset management system), was not anticipated and included in the original budget or timing estimates. It was also originally anticipated that a significant amount of this work would be carried out by the consultants working on the system but that has not proved to be correct. Upon further discussion with INFOR, it has become clear that the data migration work needs to be done in house and by staff that understand the nature of Council’s assets. The process is slow because of its complicated nature and the need for the Technical Business Analyst and Data & Systems Specialist to perform much of the analysis at a pace that is dictated by their other respective workloads.

· Due to the significant workload associated with the data cleansing requirement, the ‘go-live’ for the system is currently forecast to be delayed from June 2022 as previously notified.

· This report highlights that, while Programme Darwin is in a stable position, a component of the AMS Project is progressing significantly slower than previously projected, resulting in an increase to the estimated cost to completion

· This report recommends a way forward to scaleup the execution effort within the AMS Project, particularly the data cleansing and migration work, to deliver an operational system by late 2026.

· This report seeks approval from Council for additional –

CAPEX funding of $2.009m:

o To ramp up the execution capability of the AMS Project to, among others, affect a substantial increase in the delivery rate of Data Cleansing & Migration work, that will reduce the current delivery timeline by 16 months.

OPEX funding of $165k:

o To enable the supplementary Programme Darwin workstreams driving process improvement and stakeholder engagement.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) approve an additional $2,009,000 capital expenditure budget for Programme Darwin, allocated from 2022/23 through 2026/27 as follows:

2022/23 $643k

2023/24 $618k

2024/25 $318k

2025/26 $322k

2026/27 $108k

b) approve $165,000 operational expenditure to be added into the 2023/24 Annual Plan.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Programme Darwin is a significant piece of work that has been underway since 2018. The original intention and scope were to implement an Integrated Asset Management System that would enable Council to make better informed investment decisions based on condition rather than the age of the assets, and to provide the ability to balance affordability, risk and Levels of Service. Over time as Council has become more mature in asset management, additional requirements have been identified and what started in 2018 as a project to implement an asset management system, evolved during 2019 into a programme of work to deliver a comprehensive enhanced asset management capability within Council.

Alongside an expanded Programme scope, over time the complexity and size of the task has become more apparent. In particularly a better definition of system needs and the overall size of the task to cleanse existing asset data has been identified.

The environment in which Programme Darwin exists has now changed. The Infrastructure and Asset Management service within Council is changing with roading asset management already being delivered by the Northland Transportation Alliance via the RAMM database, and three waters asset management being delivered through a potential new entity from 2024. Unless Council takes on new services, this leaves Council with a potential asset management system from 2024 serving Maritime, Solid Waste and District Facilities.

The AMS Project is being delivered in two distinct successive phases. Phase 1 comprises:

• Setting up the new asset management system (IPS Suite).

• Developing an asset hierarchy for FNDC and configuring this in the IPS system.

• Setting up the INFOR operating system (IOS) and installing the integration engine (ION).

• Integrating ArcGIS, TechOne and Pathway into the IPS system.

• Training relevant staff on the use of the new system.

• Data cleansing and migration from the interim database (IDB) into IPS.

• Analysis of FNDC financial fixed asset register.

• System go-live with relevant asset data groups migrated into IPS.

Once Phase 1 is completed and the IPS system is switched on for utilization by end users, the functionality of IPS will be limited. While some financial, attribute, condition, and performance data will be available for assets, no workflows will exist from which, for example, automated maintenance schedules (driven by engineering standards) may be planned. Also, while IPS will be integrated with ArcGIS, actual configuration will only be done during Phase 2, at which time the users will identify the fields from IPS that will need to be brought into the ArcGIS spatial layer.

Go-live will be followed by incremental enhancement of the IPS system. Phase 2 will comprise:

• Enabling organizational design by crafting a structure and roles to support new value chains and driving a customer centric asset planning and services delivery culture.

• Driving process improvement within IAM through a transition from manual, administrative and reactive tasks to automated, dynamic and value driven work tasks.

• Enabling the on-going transition from aged-based towards condition-based asset lifecycle management.

• Developing IPS asset acquisition processes controlled via build sheets.

• Developing IPS\ION automated workflows.

• Developing advanced analytical reporting on IPS assets as defined by FNDC.

• Aligning stakeholder processes around the new IPS system.

• Integrating land use planning with infrastructure by enabling informed decision making around infrastructure delivery including network capacity, lifecycle optimisation and demand.

During August 2021, staff undertook a deep dive into the overall Programme to review progress, risk and Programme costs. This deep dive was framed by gained knowledge around the implementation of the asset management system and the complexity and time it was taking to undertake data cleansing and migration into the new system. The deep dive pointed to a high probability that Phase 1 of the Project will only be completed late 2024 with the system going live early in 2025.

Staff have identified that initial budget estimates did not consider the complexity, quantum of effort, and time that would be required to cleanse and migrate data for approximately 70,000 assets from the Interim Database into the new asset management system (IPS). The additional funds required represent salaries of backfilled positions and specialist consultant/contractor fees to assist with the data cleansing and migration related work.

Three of the options presented reduce the delivery timeline (particularly the data cleansing & migration work) by 12, 20 and 16 months respectively from the status quo. Within all of the four options presented it is evident that additional funding will be required over the life of Programme Darwin to secure the successful delivery of the envisioned Asset Management solution.

The existing capital budget for the project was $886k. As of the end of October total expenditure against this budget has been $102,159.

A full update on the status of Programme Darwin is included as Attachment 1.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

A brief description of the four options is provided below.

Option 1 – Maintain Status Quo (All Asset Groups)

• The first option adopts the new timeline for Phase 1 of the AMS Project established through the team’s deep dive exercise.

• This option supports a high probability of data cleansing and migration completion by late 2024 and go-live by February 2025.

• This is the most cost-effective prospect (an unbudgeted increase of $1.867m) for the overall programme.

• This option does not factor in the opportunity cost to Council of only being in a position to initiate enhancements to the IPS system (e.g., the advanced analytics function) towards February 2025 when Phase 2 is scheduled to kick off.

Option 2 – Reduce Timeline with 12 Months (All Asset Groups)

• Introduces two additional teams (inclusive of three additional Senior Data Analysts), to augment the existing AMS Project team and work concurrently to deliver Phase 1 by March 2024.

• This option offers an opportunity to Council to begin enhancing the IPS Suite, 12 months earlier than projected in Option 1.

• This option carries the highest additional overall cost for the Programme (an unbudgeted increase of $3.865m).

Option 3 – Reduce Timeline with 20 Months (Sequence Three Waters Asset Groups)

• The third option introduces two additional teams (inclusive of three additional Senior Data Analysts) to supplement the existing AMS Project team and work concurrently to deliver Phase 1 by June 2023.

• The difference between this option and Option 2 is that this option will reprioritize all Three Waters asset groups in favour of a pilot process for Maritime assets, followed by a focus on District Facilities asset groups.

• Since this option will sequence the migration of Three Waters assets into IPS, the delivery schedule will gain 20 months on Option 1, at a resultant unbudgeted increase of $2.630m.

Option 4 – Reduce Timeline with 16 Months (Sequence Three Waters Asset Groups) (Recommended)

• Introduces two additional teams (inclusive of two additional Senior Data Analysts), to supplement the existing AMS Project team and work concurrently to deliver Phase 1 by October 2023.

• As with Option 3 this option will also reprioritize all Three Waters asset groups in favour of a pilot process for Maritime assets, followed by a focus on District Facilities asset groups.

• This option will similarly sequence the migration of Three Waters assets into IPS, allowing the delivery schedule to gain 16 months on Option 1, at a resultant unbudgeted increase of $2.009m, which proves marginally more costly than Option 1.

For all four of the options substantial process improvement, transformational and stakeholder engagement work is required, leading up to and extending beyond the estimated go-live date. While some of this work is capitalizable, an amount will need to be augmented from operational funding. The current estimate for this is $165k as an operational cost which will need to be reflected in the 2023/24 Annual Plan.

In the event that none of the four proposed options are approved and no additional funding is available for Programme Darwin, the current project team will continue with and complete the work as specified under Phase 1. However, the available budget of $885,932 will not be sufficient to complete Phase 2 of the Programme. Since all asset data, required for the initiation of system go-live, will be cleansed and migrated into the new asset management system, Council will be able to capitalize the project costs incurred up to that point in time. The proviso being that the system is useable.

Projected Timeline

The estimated time and sequenced scope (particular to asset classes) for each of the four options are shown in Figure 1. The blue bars represent the projected timeframe for Phase 1 culminating in a go-live date and the initiation of Phase 2, represented by the red bars.

FIGURE 1 - Programme/Project Options (Time & Scope)

Notes:

1. Phase 2 is estimated to continue across three to five years subject to the complexity and quantum of system enhancements required by the organization.

2. A lead time of six months is required to set up and resource the additional teams for Options 2 through 4.

Projected Costs

The total estimated capital cost for the AMS Project and Programme Darwin is shown in Figure 2. The AMS Project will stand up an integrated asset management system that will enable effective and efficient asset management. While the AMS Project is focused on establishing the technology component of the programme of work, Programme Darwin will establish additional workstreams to cover off the work related to people (culture, roles & responsibilities, training, stakeholder engagement, change management & communications) and processes (asset lifecycle, asset condition and performance, spatial data, trend analysis and advance analytics).

The cells in the tables are colour coded to provide an indication of the ranking in terms of cost and scope for each option. The top two tables provide details on the raw totals from the cost estimates. The centre set of tables describe the actual life-to-date (30 June 2021) cost of the programme next to the available funding ($885,932) for the current financial year. The set of tables at the bottom respectively compare the additional budgets that will be required for each of the options (once the available budget is used up) against the timelines and scope as presented in Figure 1.

FIGURE 2 - Programme/Project Options (Cost & Scope)

Notes:

1. The most favourable elements are depicted against a Green background, and least favourable against a Red background.

2. The budget for Phase 2 (included in the above calculations) is currently estimated at $440,000, based on a three-year execution delivery timeline and a low level of confidence.

3. The calculations exclude the operational cost estimate of $165k, common to all four options, and required for the period extending over the go-live period.

The estimated annual cost over the life of the Programme is provided in Figure 3 for each of the four options. Where the go-live date falls within close proximity to a financial year end, the $165k is split between the two financial years. This allows process improvement work to commence approximately 6 months before go-live and continue for the same duration after the system has been ‘switched on’ for the end-users.

FIGURE 3 - Annual Budget Requirements per Option

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Option 4 is recommended as it provides an optimal cost-risk-benefit scenario allowing the Programme Darwin to continue and to:

• Minimise delivery risk by mitigating the uncertainty brought about by the Three Waters Reform changes. Decisions on three waters assets can be made as late as possible (by deferring commitment) for data groups, thereby minimizing potential rework on three waters data. This would potentially minimise the double handling of data between the FNDC system and the new Water Services Entity system.

• Central Government have indicated that they will make a funding package available to support local authorities through the (Three Waters Reform) transition process. More focused planning around an optimal three waters asset cleansing and migration process can be done once the funding amount allocated to FNDC becomes available in the next financial year.

• Addressing the opportunity cost and unlocking the benefits of delivering a functional Asset Management System to the FNDC, 16 months earlier than Option 1.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

At the closing of the 2020/21 Financial Year, actual spending amounted to $835,621 for the programme of work. As of 31 October 2021, $102,159 of the current 2021/22 budget of $885,932, had been spent. An estimated unbudgeted amount of $2.009m capital funding (over FYs 2022/23 through 2026/27) will be required for the Programme to execute on Option 4 (recommended choice) and deliver a functional asset management system to Council by October 2026.

In addition, an unbudgeted amount of $165k operational funding will be required for Programme Darwin, over the 2023/24 financial year.

The $587,981 reflected in year 2025/26 of the Long-Term Plan is to provide for any asset management system renewals that may be required.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. 2021-12-16 Programme Darwin - Update - A3487166 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Programme Darwin represents an existing Council endorsed programme of work; this report primarily seeks approval for additional CAPEX funding.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	Programme Darwin represents an existing Council endorsed programme of work; this report primarily seeks approval for additional CAPEX funding.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	Programme Darwin represents an existing Council endorsed programme of work; this report primarily seeks approval for additional CAPEX funding.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	Programme Darwin represents an existing Council endorsed programme of work; this report primarily seeks approval for additional CAPEX funding.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	This decision will result in $2.009m unbudgeted CAPEX funds being allocated to the Programme Darwin and AMS Project budgets. Also, additional OPEX funding of $165k will be required for Programme Darwin.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Introduction

Asset Management is integral to the function of local government as many of the services provided by Council rely on assets to support their delivery. Also, assets represent a significant investment by the communities that Council has a fiduciary duty to protect. Moreover, the failure of critical assets could have severe social, cultural, environmental, and economic impacts on our communities.

Strategically, asset management plays an integral role in delivering on the Long-term Planning of the Far North District Council (FNDC). Not only does it control how we execute on the District’s infrastructure strategy, but it also plays a significant role in financial planning. For assets to influence the budget, rather than being constrained by it, planning needs to be conducted at a time that allows completed financial forecasts to be readily available to underpin the budget. In this way, those making decisions on budgets can be better informed and able to consider the effect of their decisions on the assets and levels of service that particular assets support.

In many districts across New Zealand assets are increasingly stressed from over-use, under-funding, and aging. While District Councils have been managing assets for decades it has become increasingly evident that the way we did things in the past will not be sufficient to address the growing and increasingly complex challenges that lie ahead. Practical, advanced techniques that enable enhanced management of physical assets have been developed and refined over the past several years around the world. In line with these developments, the FNDC has resolved to invest in a transformational programme of work to enhance its technology, processes and people capabilities around modern asset management tools, techniques, practices, and skills.

Problem Statement

The Far North District Council could not easily report on the financial operating position (particularly profit and loss) and the balance sheet for each community asset (halls, parks, playgrounds, sewage, water, and wastewater schemes) residing within the district, wards, communities, and towns, without expending significant manual data extraction and manipulation work that introduced inconsistencies resulting in a lack of trust in the information presented. A business case was drafted in 2017 to address the challenges that were being experienced by the Asset Management team at the time. Specific challenges included:

· While the information required for informed financial asset management decision making existed, it was not held in a joined-up way in FNDC systems and contractor systems. Depreciation and budgeted expenses were held in the FNDC Finance System. Service levels were defined in tenders, and the actual costs were held by the Contractors that had the contracts to maintain the assets.

· The General Ledger was required to provide an overall view of asset finances, and it employed the Financial Fixed Asset Register to depreciate categories of assets and draw on the maintenance budgets.

· The absence of an Asset Management System with the granularity to accurately capture maintenance, capital, and operational costs at the asset component level rather than for the fixed asset, and then automatically match this data with the budgeted view for the asset.

· The need to capture condition and performance data, at the operational asset level, to enable the accurate calculation of the total cost of ownership of existing assets.

The intention was to implement and Integrated Asset Management System that would fill the above identified gaps. In time additional requirements were identified and what started in 2017 as a project to implement an asset management system, evolved during 2019 into a programme of work to deliver a comprehensive enhanced asset management capability within Council. To meet these challenges a case for change was captured in three evolutionary stages described and depicted below:

· The Right to Play: Council set out to build a high-tech vehicle that will allow us to take our stakeholders on a journey toward an enhanced Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) capability.

· The Right to Compete: Building on the foundation of our new digital solution, we will shift our focus towards relentlessly integrating, automating, rationalizing, standardizing, and simplifying all the processes and people competences required to move us ever upwards along the EAM capability maturity levels.

· The Right to Win: While this stage symbolizes an aspirational level of EAM capability, we will relentlessly strive to move ever closer toward our target-state goal of being recognized by our people, communities, and peers as a de facto leader in EAM.

The Evolution of Asset Management at FNDC

Background

As an organisation, our strategic initiatives all find their origin in our mission imperative of –

Creating Great Places, Supporting Our People!

In 2019 the FNDC set out on an ambitious journey of asset management transformation to enable its strategy of delivering on its mission. Programme Darwin, and its partner transformation programmes were set to provide the basis for FNDC to steadily improve our performance towards realising our mission.

The key transformational programmes at the time were targeted towards (1) improving our customers’ experiences, (2) enabling online services, and (3) evolving asset management maturity. The latter of these programmes shaped what became known as Programme Darwin, conceptualised within four initial workstreams, that were updated in 2020 as depicted in the figures below:

Structure of Initial Darwin Workstreams (2019)

Following an October 2020 review of these workstreams, to ensure alignment with the benefits categories, the programme team opted to refine the core outcome area for each. While the initial workstream around system development remained unchanged the other three were merged into two streams and a new Customer/Stakeholder stream was established. This was thought to better represent the natural programme cycle and dependencies and to lift the user focus area to a more prominent level. It also made aids with improved accountability for each workstream ensuring more direct function alignment of resourcing. The adjusted workstreams are presented below.

Structure of Revised Darwin Workstreams (2020)

The November 2020 report to Elected Members indicated that, supported by these projects/workstreams, Programme Darwin was positioned to, in time, achieve:

· Control over our asset data and reducing our reliance on contractors to manage the data and our lifecycle asset management processes

· A 360° view of assets, i.e., a complete view of any asset, its cost, its condition, and its planned renewal details.

· Enhanced reporting functionality on assets and the true cost of asset maintenance and replacement, as input to decision making by Infrastructure & Asset Management teams, Governance Groups, the Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) and Elected Members.

· Control over our work management processes relating to reactive and preventative maintenance.

· Complete and accurate information on which to base 5-year through 20-year renewals plans for the Long-Term Plan (LTP) and Asset Delivery teams – published through an annual Living Asset Management Plan (LAMP) and to be ready to support the LTP review in 2024^{^[1]}.

Strategic Alignment

It is essential that all asset management activities be firmly linked to the organization's key objectives. Moreover, it is vital to ensure alignment between the Programme objectives & goals and the asset management vision while ensuring clear linkages between:

· Business drivers / goals of the organization (see Life Cycle Processes and Practices - Strategic Planning)

· Lifecycle asset management functions

· Individual actions associated with them, and how these key linkages impact on the business's value chain

Long Term Plan

FNDC and the governance arm set an ambitious programme to realise the District Vision, articulated through 6 focus areas in the LTP:

Darwin remains aligned to the updated Council Strategic Priorities listed below:

2018 Priorities 2021 Priorities

1. Civic leadership and advocacy (SA1) 1. Better asset management (P1)

2. Address affordability (SA2) 2. Address affordability (P2)

3. Better data and information (SA3) 3. Enable sustainable economic development (P3)

4. Affordable core infrastructure (SA4) 4. Adapt to climate change (P4)

5. Improved Council capabilities and performance (SA5) 5. Protect our water supply (P5)

6. Empowering communities (SA6) 6. Deepen or sense of place and connection (P6)

The Programme was established to stand-up a system to analyze and manage FNDC’s asset information within a single source, configured to support a dynamic planning, operating, and reporting environment. Fundamentally it set out to provide the information infrastructure to capture, store and interrogate the attribute, condition and performance data needed as the basis for all investment planning and operating activities.

Building off FNDC’s objectives, Programme Darwin developed a supporting set of program benefits in 2019 to demonstrate its influence on the corporate goals as well as guide and recognize delivery achievement. The benefit realization categories, defined during 2019, through consultation with staff, stakeholders, and elected members were aligned as follows alongside their links to the Councils strategic focus areas (SA):

· Accurate, timely and robust system and data to develop infrastructure investment and service optimization; (SA3)

· Demonstrating value for money in both current and future asset management decisions; (SA2, SA4)

· Improved capabilities and performance to optimize Council and data supply chain resourcing; (SA5)

· Industry leading thought leadership and community advocacy in asset management through accessible data and scheme representation: (SA1, SA6)

The strategic alignment of Programme Darwin against the six LTP priorities updated in 2021, was reviewed with particular focus on the first three priority areas.

· Accurate, timely and robust system and data to develop infrastructure investment and service optimization; (P1, P2)

· Demonstrating value for money in both current and future asset management decisions; (P2, P3, P4, P5)

· Improved capabilities and performance to optimize Council and data supply chain resourcing; (P1, P2)

· Industry leading thought leadership and community advocacy in asset management through accessible data and scheme representation: (P1, P6)

CouncilMARK^{^[2]}

‘Service Delivery and Asset Management’ is one of 4 priority areas referenced in CouncilMARK and received a rating of ‘Competent’ during 2020. Darwin related ‘Areas of Improvement’ referenced in the report include:

· Council vision and strategy lacks clarity and coherence and are not explicitly aligned with asset management plans and service delivery strategies.

· Management of three waters assets is weak, with Council struggling to consistently achieve regulatory standards and community expectations.

The success of the ‘Service Delivery and Asset Management’ workstream is largely dependent on the successful delivery of Programme Darwin. As noted above, Darwin along with other transformational programmes, will deliver change across the organisation that will enable us to deliver on FNDC’s mission.

Organisation Strategy 2021

Over the past three years Council has focused inwards working on our systems and processes to build our capability so as to create great places and support our people. However, much has changed during this time, some events which emerged outside of our sphere of control lead us to realise that we needed to be responsive to our rapidly changing world. We want to position ourselves to be at the ready to find our new place and this has led us to shift our strategy toward a path where we remain focused to –

Look up and outwards!

…to our people, our communities, and our future. This is the Far North District Council’s new three-year organisation strategy. It focuses on what matters most, i.e.:

· Enriching our culture for our customers

· Putting the local back into local government

· Building strong external relationships | Mahi ngātahi

New strategic architecture with the prioritized ‘big moves’ to deliver on the three-plus-one priorities^{^[3]}

Again, Programme Darwin is well positioned to address particularly the first two priorities i.e.:

· Programme Darwin will help to enrich our culture for our customers by providing and equipping our staff with the relevant asset management tools, processes, techniques, and skills to deliver outstanding customer outcomes, every time.

· Programme Darwin will help put the local back into local government by enabling us to gain an enhanced understanding of the changes that may impact on our communities and thereby ensuring that the future trajectory of asset management is ever more focused on integrated and sustainable outcomes that improve the wellbeing of our society.

Benefits Realisation

Towards the end of the Programme Darwin journey, our strategic intend is for FNDC to hold:

· Accurate, complete asset data that is controlled and maintained by FNDC

· A robust analysis on this data that enables better long-term infrastructure decisions and delivers better value for money

· An articulated asset management hierarchy, with links between strategic and operational asset management clearly defined

· Commitment horizontally – Planning, engineering, finance, strategy, project management

· Commitment vertically – SLT, Tier 3 Managers, relevant staff (Partnering with us to continue in developing our inhouse capability, capacity, and commitment to our vision of continuous improvement in the discipline of asset management)

· An accurate data set allowing trade-offs to be made with confidence so that the best value whole-of-life strategies can be developed, using real-time data

· The IPS Suite fully integrated with all other FNDC and Alliance Partner systems enabling easy information sharing, analysis, and ultimately better information to support decision making

· A higher level of asset management competence within existing staff, and growing a pipeline of asset management talent

· An embedded culture of continuous improvement providing the space to be agile enough to rapidly flex to changing asset management requirements

Governance

The Governance of Programme Darwin is controlled via a Programme Steering Group (PSG). PSGs are decision making bodies that ensure the right activities are taking place, undertaken correctly and are in alignment with strategic goals. The PSG further provides a forum for senior management to better understand the scope, benefits, financial and contractual status of a group of related projects (managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not obtainable from managing the projects individually), enabling informed decisions to be made and ensuring a high level of communication with stakeholders.

Reports on the programme’s progress, finances, timelines, changes, issues, and risks are submitted to the PSG on a monthly basis. The PSG deliberates on key issues or potential delivery risks that may have adverse implications for FNDC in terms of time and cost; or being of a high public profile / politically sensitive nature whilst ensuring a zero-harm focus on programme delivery is maintained. Any approvals or endorsements required, that are outside of the PSG’s authority, will be referred to the Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) who in turn will escalate items, as appropriate, to either the FNDC Council via the Chief Executive Officer, or Infrastructure Committee via the General Manager – IAM.

The PSG is not involved in the day-to-day management of the programme but rather sets the broad direction to be taken by the programme team responsible for the delivery and administration of the programme and related projects. With a key focus on Stakeholder Needs, the PSG’s objective of Value Creation is driven by balancing three interrelated constructs, namely:

· Benefits realisation

· Risk Optimization

· Resource Optimization

The membership of the Programme Darwin PSG is listed in the table below:

Role	Name	Job Title
Sponsor	Andy Finch	General Manager: IAM
Programme Manager / Chair	Chris Grobler	Programme Manager: EAM
Senior User & Joint Workstream Lead – Transformation	Helen Ronaldson	Manager: AM & IP
Senior Supplier (Technology)	Jaime Dyhrberg	Chief Digital Officer
Senior Supplier (P&C) & Joint Workstream Lead - Transformation	Alison Carnaby	Business Partner: P&C
Subject Matter Expert (Finance)	Janice Smith	Chief Financial Officer
By Invitation
Subject Matter Expert (Asset Management)	Kirsty Farrow	Team Leader: AM
Subject Matter Expert (Change)	Andy Dowdle	Project Change Specialist
Subject Matter Expert (Risk)	Tanya Reid	Business Improvement Specialist
Workstream Lead - Technology	Daniel Shultz	IT Project Manager
Workstream Lead - Process	Vacant
Workstream Lead - Stakeholders	Vacant

Structure of the Programme Steering Group

The programme is mandated to provide monthly reports to the Infrastructure Committee and quarterly report updates to the Assurance, Risk and Finance (ARF) Committee. Also, the programme has a regular slot to provide feedback at the SLT Performance Meeting ensuring the executive leadership are kept informed on the programme’s state of play.

Programme Delivery Workstreams – 2021

Structure of project / workstream delivery work under Programme Darwin

Programme Management

Programme Darwin is a transformational programme supporting asset management capability maturity through the utilization of technology, processes, and people. At its core is the asset management system (IPS Suite) that will collect, filter, store, collate, analyze, and disseminate enriched asset data and management information. Once operational, the asset data, analysis and performance functionality will provide a platform for incremental improvement towards optimizing our business processes around whole of life asset management. In addition, the new asset management system will serve as a catalyst for the development of new lifecycle asset management skills, competencies and organizational arrangements that collectively will support FNDC’s vision of leading best appropriate asset management practice.

One of Council’s overarching goals is to be an industry leader and intelligent asset data owner and manager in order to demonstrate sound investment decisions and deliver great asset stewardship. The AMS Project is built on a robust and detailed implementation roadmap that supports the development of the system engine, and a healthy commitment from staff and stakeholders to make it happen.

During 2020 the Programme Manager recommended that a renewed focus be placed on the monitoring and reporting of the benefit realization framework and greater project/programme integration so as to reinvigorate stakeholder and general council staff awareness, assuring renewed confidence in the programme. He proposed that a revised programme timeline was needed to reset expectations and identify constraining and/or dependent processes and system requirements. While it is evident that a strong and viable implementation strategy and supporting roadmap was established for the AMS Project, alignment with broader programme outcomes, the asset management ecosystem, and the interdependencies with other FNDC business strategy’s (beyond IAM) all needed to be revisited. Changing operational demands and programme delays predominantly contributed to this need to reset the deliverables along the roadmap.

Technology

The Asset Management System (AMS) Project drives the delivery of the technology stream. The AMS Project will be delivered in two distinct successive phases. Phase 1 comprise:

· Setting up the new asset management system (IPS Suite).

· Developing an asset hierarchy for FNDC and configuring this in the IPS system.

· Setting up the INFOR operating system (IOS) and installing the integration engine (ION).

· Integrating ArcGIS, TechOne and Pathway into the IPS system.

· Training relevant staff on the use of the new system.

· Data cleansing and migration from the interim database (IDB) into IPS.

· Analysis of FNDC financial fixed asset register.

· System go-live with relevant asset data groups migrated into IPS.

Go-live will be followed by incremental enhancement of the IPS system. Phase 2 will comprise:

· Enabling organizational design by crafting a structure and roles to support new value chains, driving customer centric asset planning and services delivery.

· Driving process improvement within IAM through a transition from manual, administrative and reactive tasks to automated, dynamic and value driven work tasks.

· Enabling the transition from aged-based towards condition-based asset lifecycle management.

· Developing IPS asset acquisition processes controlled via build sheets.

· Developing IPS\ION automated workflows.

· Developing advanced analytical reporting on IPS assets as defined by FNDC.

· Aligning stakeholders around the new IPS system.

The project team comprise the following members:

Process

The process component contains a number of sub-projects, including embedding and systematizing lifecycle asset management, building discipline around continued process improvement practices, executing on a programme of work to capture our asset condition data into a repository, configuring our advanced analytics module to improve decision making and reporting, and integrating our asset management system to ArcGIS to enable enhanced spatial planning.

1-Lifecycle Asset Management

As an asset owner, it is vital for FNDC and more particularly the IAM Area, to be able to paint a clear picture of our asset management performance. We need to be able to identify what we can produce and at what cost. This approach requires the consideration of the entire lifecycle process. From the initial concept or identification of a demand for service through the creation phase, into operations, maintenance, and renewal and through to disposal - all elements need to be considered. This is relatively easy for a single asset, but as with the case of FNDC where we own a mature network and portfolio that consists of tens-of-thousands of individual assets, the task becomes complicated. It is therefore important to understand where assets are in their lifecycle and how we can reduce their cost while enhancing performance.

2-Process Improvement

While Programme Darwin is founded on a solid and reliable technology platform there are (discovered) configuration and system management issues arising from the viability of datasets, the competency of related system/processes and the management of system inputs. A review of the configuration and data integration pathways (Systems Map) and improved control framework for data, as well as the information supply chain and system management, will identify any current gaps in coverage and/or performance requirements and develop a more sustainable long-term data/information environment.

3-Asset Condition Data Programme

Having accurate and current Three Waters (3W) asset condition and attribute (dimensional) data is a key dependency for Programme Darwin to deliver on its objective of providing a 360° view of assets, i.e., a complete view of any asset, its cost, its condition, and its planned renewal details. Quality asset condition and attribute data provides the necessary input material for this system, which in turn will allow for development of robust information on which to base investment, renewal, and maintenance decisions. In the past, Council ran a number of small-scale ad hoc condition assessment projects, but the disjointed approach and lack of a standardized assessment framework has meant that this work was not optimized for Programme Darwin. FNDC has identified a managed programme of six respective asset condition assessment areas that will contribute to a comprehensive condition & attribute data capture programme, which will ultimately improve asset decision making and community confidence.

The Three Waters Condition Assessment Programme Procurement Plan set out a procurement approach to spending $990,000 of budgeted OPEX funds to deliver on six packages of work with the objective of increasing the accuracy of FNDC’s asset condition data and allow improved decision making in renewals investments. The programme of works was designed to support the following business objectives (benefits):

· Enable better, more informed asset management decisions that maintain and/or enhance appropriate levels of network service.

· Enable better planning for the long, medium, short terms focusing on the performance, full lifecycle, and the dependencies between lifecycle activities of our assets.

· Ensure closer, more accurate financial management of FNDC’s assets regarding financial processes. e.g., cost, revenue, capitalization, forecast, budget etc., to give a more accurate and up to date perspective of the asset’s value at any given time during a financial year.

· Ensure that asset information is accurate and fit for purpose to meet FNDC’s asset management objectives particularly relating to renewals, augmentation, and new capital.

· Reduce total cost of ownership of assets by reducing the time taken to complete reactive maintenance and release staff time to focus on more planned work.

· Improve the responsiveness and efficiency of all asset functions so that customers and stakeholders are better informed.

· Ensure that FNDC is agile and continues to meet changing customer business needs.

The specific aspects of the programme of work were scoped out under five themes as detailed below:

Water Valve – Location and Testing

· Confirm condition, function, type (including controller details), size and location of valves.

CCTV Pipeline – Inspection

· Confirm condition of gravity pipelines via CCTV pipeline inspection.

· Confirm structural and serviceability status.

· Contractor will complete a light flush and CCTV onsite. The video will be reviewed for relevant asset information.

· Contractor will provide marked up plans to detail any variations between asset register data and onsite findings.

Potholing – Non-Destructive Visual Inspection

· Confirm condition and location of pressurized water mains.

· Contractor will uncover the water main and visually inspect the external condition of the pipe.

· Contactor will provide marked up plans to detail any variations between asset register data and onsite findings.

Flood Gate – Assessments

· Inspection of approximately 66 floodgates to assign a 1 to 5 condition grade to the flap-gate mechanism, head/wing wall structure and spillway structure, collect attribute data and identify remedial works.

Pipe Bridge – Assessments

· Visual inspection of approximately 87 wastewater and 37 water supply pipe bridges.

· Assign condition rating, collect attribute data, and identify remedial works.

· Poor condition assets may be referred to a structural engineer for further inspection and risk assessment.

4-Advanced Analytics & Trend Analysis

Best appropriate practice in the management of asset data to ensure clear and accurate analysis of relevant data sets, requires a detailed asset register policy that includes connectivity and hierarchical depth (varied to suit the complexity and needs of IPS). The asset register record should hold:

· Basic asset information

· Special physical attributes

· Manufacturer details

· Condition assessment

· Performance data

· Utilization in terms of capacity or quantity

· Predictive outputs e.g., condition decay

· Hierarchical Structure and maintenance managed items (MMIs)

· Minimum Attributes

· Location and Dimensional Plans

· Operational Data

· Roles and responsibilities for data acquisition

· The QA system that is employed to verify these standards

5-ArcGIS Integrated Spatial Data

The functional benefits of integrating a spatial system to our new IPS Suite are listed below:

· IPS integration with ArcGIS will support the objective of a seamless and robust single spatial ‘record of truth’.

· FNDC staff and external users will be able to visually locate and identify assets using the ArcGIS interface.

· The user will be able to access underlying attribute data stored in the asset register component of IPS.

· The ArcGIS interface with IPS will permit asset creation, editing, viewing, and querying capabilities.

· Integration with ArcGIS will enable reuse across the FNDC's environment to allow viewing of visual documents e.g., as-builts (in the network folder) via URLs/Hyperlinks.

· Creation and maintenance of linear features (e.g., pipes), point features (e.g., manholes) and polygon features (e.g., parks or building outlines). Functionality will also allow point features to be added by entering relevant X & Y coordinates.

· In conjunction with the IPS asset register, users will be supported by the automated generation of unique asset identifiers.

· Manually imported assets will have the option to either apply a predetermined unique identifier or have this system derived. This process will be supported by an active error identification process (e.g., duplicate record alerts).

· The system will also provide for the execution of editing functions such as: Joining linear or polygon feature assets, splitting linear or polygon feature assets, adjusting the location of assets, deleting/disposing/abandoning assets. A feature to un-dispose an asset, if disposed in error, maintaining its original Asset ID and all attributes is also desired.

· The solution will provide validation checks to ensure data integrity (synchronization) between the ArcGIS and the IPS asset register is maintained and include tools to help correct any errors. Security rules will limit users to the minimum required access needed to perform their work in IPS.

· If a user selected an asset in the ArcGIS system the associated attribute data, stored in the IPS asset register, will be displayed.

· A query, selection and display of an asset or group of assets within the IPS Suite, e.g., asset register or maintenance management programme etc., could then be passed to the GIS to spatially view the selected assets.

· Query, select and display an asset or group of assets spatially with ArcGIS by address, work order type, condition ratings or other nominated asset attributes such as age, size, material etc.

· Query, select and display an asset or group of assets spatially with ArcGIS and pass the selection set (link) to IPS functionality, e.g., asset register or maintenance management etc.

People

The people construct is split into three interrelated sub-streams comprising transformation, stakeholders, and change management & communications.

1-Transformation

The Transformation sub-stream will work in concert with the Stakeholders and Change Management sub-streams to ensure a structured evolutionary People transition process is established that will move our stakeholders along a journey from a pre-Darwin state towards a target aspirational state, fulfilling our vision of leading best appropriate practice EAM in New Zealand. The programme’s past has seen a bias towards a technical and process intensive delivery with less focus on programme outcomes. To address this, and as an adjunct to the strengthened programme leadership, the asset management and planning leader was appointed in mid-2020. This leadership role will both support Programme Darwin through the articulation of the broader organizational direction and build team confidence through greater emphasis on stewardship through prioritized work plans and associated performance targets. The leadership team is also now better positioned to focus on interfacing with the executive, council and key stakeholders on changing programme and asset management outcomes.

2-Stakeholders

A stakeholder register was collated to capture details on stakeholders' interests and expectations from Darwin to help the programme team understand their communication requirements. The register provides a list of the stakeholders’ names against their designation, role in the programme, interests, expectations, influence, etc. It is a dynamic catalogue and will be updated and maintained throughout the particular project lifecycles. Role defines each stakeholder's role in a project (e.g., Sponsor, Project Lead, Tester, Product Manager).

Programme Stakeholder Map – Depicting Communication Required by Stakeholder Class

· Upward, is related to the parent organization: Executives, investors, and project sponsors. These stakeholders have business and financial interests in the project.

· Downward, are stakeholders who are underneath the project hierarchy: Suppliers, contractors, service providers, and so forth. The project teams themself also counts as downward.

· Outward, are stakeholders who have a ‘stake’ in the project, such as government regulators, adjacent landowners, end users, customers, communities, and even the general public.

· Sideways, are stakeholders who are in competition with the project for scarce resources, such as other project managers and organizational departments.

Interests denotes the interest of every stakeholder involved in the programme. Each stakeholder has a different level of interest (High/Medium/Low) in a particular project under the programme. Influence or Power defines the level of influence of a stakeholder on the programme. Some stakeholders, for example the Sponsor, have High power as they can influence the decisions on what the programme should deliver. However, in an agile environment, the developers will have a High influence on the decisions being made about how project deliverables are executed.

There are five levels of support into which stakeholders fall:

· Unaware: The stakeholder is unaware of the programme and its potential consequences to them.

· Resistant: The stakeholder is aware of the programme but opposed to it.

· Neutral: The stakeholder is neither supportive nor opposed to the programme.

· Supportive: The stakeholder is in favour of the programme and wants it to succeed.

· Leading: The stakeholder is actively engaged in programme’s success, and willing to aid the programme and various project management teams.

Communication requirements describes the mode of communication a stakeholder expects. Stakeholders expect regular communication regarding the status of the programme, and they may prefer differing types and modes of communication delivery. Frequency field mentions the frequency at which the stakeholder expects to receive the communication.

3-Change Management & Communications

To overcome any loss of focus a reinvigorated approach is required built off a reset/reinterpretation of user needs, benefit realization and the resulting programme value proposition. The resulting alignment of strategy’s and coordinated goals can then be refined under a common communication environment that continually refreshes awareness and achievement across the whole organization.

Change Management Plan

Change Management (CM) focuses on the people side of Programme Darwin. Specifically Change Management looks at the Current State (the processes and practices currently being undertaken by Asset Management at FNDC) and the Future State (what changes when Darwin delivers the ‘technical’ changes). The impact of changes will be detailed in an Impact Assessment for each workstream.

Using the findings outlined in the Impact Assessments, CM is able to prepare a Change Management Plan outlining the planned Change Activities. Typically Change Activities fall into three categories

· Communications (TK3 updates, targeted emails, team presentations, newsletters, etc.)

· Training (classroom, one-on-one coaching, online material, inline system help, etc.)

· Process (updating Work Instructions, developing Promapp workflow, procedural changes, etc.)

The underpinning Change Management ‘methodology’ adopted by FNDC leverages the ADKAR model

Timeline

Description automatically generated

ADKAR is ‘brought to life’ at FNDC through the Project Management Framework, many of the steps a project (or programme) goes through, in planning and delivering projects, reflect sound Change Management principles.

Delivered – Life To Date

The graphic below delineates the extend of the execution delivery work that was accomplished by the AMS Project since November 2019:

DESIGN (Green)

· The first piece of work required the drafting of the IPS Des 20, which is the system design document, based on our technical requirements specifications provided to INFOR.

· In order for INFOR to build the system we were required to provide them with our asset hierarchy, which took six months to be completed. The work required close involvement from the asset managers and was delivered in June 2020.

TECHNICAL (Orange)

· Provisioning simply means the technical work performed by IT to setup the infrastructure on particular servers within specific Endpoint Management Environments, in our case a DEVELOPMENT (Dev) and PRODUCTION (Prod) environment. (Provisioning can also be described as the steps in the process to manage access to data and resources and make these available to end-users and systems).

· Just a note on the core application within the INFOR stable that we purchased, i.e., the version of the INFOR PUBLIC SECTOR SUITE or IPS Suite, was not compatible with the INFOR OPERATING SYSTEM, i.e., IOS (IPS lags behind the other products in the stable).

· The ION is the INFOR Middleware (sitting between the IOS and Applications) solution that allows seamless integration from back-office systems to both INFOR and third-party applications, whether they are on-premise, in the Cloud, or both.

· Ten Digital Information Services staff have attended the technical ION training. One take-away for the attendees from the training was the realization that the ION was technically intricate and that a dedicated resource would be required sometime in the future to care-take the support and maintenance of the ION and IOS.

· With the training completed, the integration (linked) to amongst others, Pathway and ArcGIS could be finalized. This does not include configuration at this point in time, e.g., we have not decided which fields from IPS need to be brought into the ArcGIS spatial layer.

· As noted above, the upgrades were needed to ensure alignment or compatibility to the IOS.

ANALYSIS (Amber)

· Particular Asset Hierarchies were crafted for respectively 3-Waters and District Facilities.

· Also, on the third line is depicted the time that was spent with the Fixed Asset Accountant to gain alignment in terms of her requirements and what she was doing around the Financial Fixed Asset Register function. This will be revisited in time when the to-be processes, as they will be executed via IPS, will be investigated, and implemented.

ASSET DATA CLEANSING & MIGRATION (Blue)

Asset groups were formed by reviewing existing asset types and grouping ‘like’ assets together. Plant and network assets posed high levels of complexity in setting these up in the IPS system. Since it was easier to develop and refine the migration process against non-network, standalone assets, the cleansing, and migration of District Facilities assets were given preference. The groups were initially defined to run in order; however, a number of adjustments were made based on new learnings and insights gained by the team and changing business requirements. An example of this was the taking on of differing asset type groups at the same time, allowing the team to continue with one group should delays be experienced in the other. The team is able to pivot as required based on stakeholder needs and directives from the PSG. The data cleansing and migration steps follow the below sequence:

FNDC Asset Data - Summary

The complexity of the data cleansing, and migration from the Interim Database into IPS, was not estimated upfront as this would have created a significant delay in the initial stages of the process. The team relied on the principle of Progressive Elaboration to guide them towards a realistic duration and execution effort estimate, based on empirical evidence. With the benefit of 12-months of hindsight, the team ran a deep-dive analysis of the pace of execution and extrapolated their existing progress towards estimating the duration to completion.

The results from the analysis showed the most probable completion date for Phase 1 to be towards the end of 2024. Although the benefits realization to FNDC is not as evident in Phase 1 as in Phase 2, the first phase will nonetheless add a great deal of value to the Three Waters and District Facilities asset management teams as well as to the Financial Fixed Assets Register related work done by Fixed Asset Accountant, and it will form the foundation from which the IPS advanced analytics will be set up.

Some of the complexities and built-in value activities that constrain the pace of delivery, are listed below, followed by a view of the current status of the asset data groups.

Backlog		On hold		WIP		Done
Group 3	N/A, added to other groups	Group 2	DF – Street furniture, Parks, Landscape, Lights, Paths, Recreation area, Recreation equipment	Group 11	Non-plant structure, Civil works, Signage, Berms (cemetery), Rubbish Bins	Group 1	DF – Monuments, Artwork, Barriers, Land, Playing surfaces
Group 7	DF – Cemeteries, Airports, Rural fire stations, Campgrounds, Carparks, Commercial buildings	Group 4	Maritime	Group 12	3W - Valves, includes Floodgates (SW), Boundary kits (WW), Backflow preventers	Group 5	Reference points – ‘parent’ assets for both DF and 3W assets e.g., Community Centres, Public Toilets, Treatment Plants, Reservoirs
Group 8	DF – Solid Waste, Civil Defence, Animal Shelter, Swimming pools.	Group 6	DF Building components - Public toilets, Halls, HFTE, Community Centres e.g., Library			Group 10	Reference point for Bulk water filling stations and Intakes. Anchor Blocks, Reducers, Water meters
Group 13	3W – Chambers, Inlets/Outlets, Lower Pressure Sewer pumps, Inspection points, Bores, Septic tanks, Soak holes	Group 9	Hydrants (WS), Catchpits (SW), Manholes (SW & WW)
Group 14	3W Plant – Meters, Electrical, Pumps, Tanks, Structures, Wet wells, Signage, Screens, Filter Units
Group 15	3W Plant – Telemetry/ Communications/ Monitoring, Instruments, Pipework, Ponds, Reservoirs, Tanks, Emergency storage tanks, Blowers, Dams, Marshes
Group 16	3W Plant – Equipment, UV banks, Generators, Weir, Control panels
Group 17	3W – Service lines, Nodes
Group 18	3W – Network lines; SW Main, SW Channel, WS Main, WW Main, Overland flow paths
Group 19	To be assigned list and gap analysis outcome
Group 20	Assets that are in TechOne but are not in the asset Interim Database. Assets to be loaded directly from Tech-one to IPS

Programme Roadmap

The roadmap below provides a high-level view of the current AMS Project delivery plan. From the delivery schedule it is evident that Phase 1 is expected to be completed towards the end of 2024 with Phase 2, the enhancement and optimization of the new Asset Management System (IPS), to continue for at least three years after this date.

Updated Roadmap for Phases 1 and 2

High level treatment plan:	Progress update:
Identify the gaps in the programme resourcing, processes (e.g., Business Requirements Specification), Scoping, Impact Analysis, Costing, Scheduling, etc., for the various programme workstreams.	A number of gaps have been identified and further analysis will be resumed subject to the paper presented to (and subsequent decisions made by) the SLT and EMs.
A SharePoint communications platform will be developed for the Programme. The stakeholder register will serve as a point of reference to channel relevant communications to particular stakeholder groups.	The Programme Manager is working with the PMO Project & Change Specialist and P&C Business Partner to develop a SharePoint communications platform that will articulate to stakeholders the value that the Programme will unlock within the organisation.
A SharePoint communications platform will be developed for the Programme. The platform will serve as the de facto source of Programme information.	The communications platform that is been developed will serve as the official information source for stakeholders, describing the Programme’s objectives, progress, and delivery roadmap.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 December 2021

5.5 The Reintroduction of Development Contributions in the Far North District in Alignment with the 2024-34 Long Term Plan

File Number: A3514737

Author: Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development

Authoriser: Darren Edwards, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek approval for the reintroduction of development contributions in alignment with the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Far North District Council is currently not charging developers for monetary contributions towards new development in the Far North District. This is the current policy position of Council.

· In the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 Council has made a commitment to reintroduce development contributions as part of an amendment to the Long-Term Plan.

· This paper explores options for the reintroduction of development contributions and recommends that development contributions be reintroduced with the adoption of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council approve a new development contributions policy be adopted with the adoption of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

On 25 June 2015, as part of the adoption of the 2015-25 Long Term Plan, Council adopted the attached Development Contributions Policy with the following resolution:

In the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 (Pg. 26) Council has made the following commitment to the reintroduction of development contributions.

In 2003, a Development Contributions (DC) policy was introduced to assist with funding new infrastructure that is needed because of growth in the district.

Over the years, FNDC (Far North District Council) has invested more than $22 million in providing infrastructure for anticipated developments which would use and pay for this infrastructure. However due to many factors, including the global financial crisis, growth slowed dramatically, and Council decided in 2014 that it was not justifiable to continue to charge Development Contributions.

Sustainable growth has again become evident in some locations in the Far North, and to ensure that the implications of growth are funded in a fair and balanced way, Council intends to introduce a new policy and charges as soon as possible.

This can only be achieved in concert with Programme Darwin’s delivery of core asset capacity and condition data, which will not be available until June 2021, too late to implement a new policy and charges for 1 July 2021.

Given that a Development Contributions policy can only be adopted alongside a Long-Term Plan, Council plans to amend its 2021-31 Long Term Plan in its first year to consult on and adopt a policy for implementation on 1 July 2022.

The Local Government Act 2002 (The Act) (Section 102(1)) requires a Council to have a policy on development contributions or financial contributions. The Act requires the policy to be clear on the charges. As per the 2015 Long Term Plan Resolution the Far North District Council is currently stating that it is not charging development contributions therefore this is the current Development Contributions Policy position of the Council.

A new population projection for the Far North District is currently out for tender and is due to be completed in the first quarter of the 2022 calendar year. This is expected to reconfirm that population growth is occurring across the District and is expected to continue into the near future.

Council has commenced a review of the Kerikeri/Waipapa Structure Plan 2007. Managing and funding growth in the Structure Plan Review area has been identified as a significant challenge to the Council and the community.

On 13 October 2021 a workshop to discuss development contributions was held with elected members, staff and an invited consultant (Gina Sweetman) who specialises in development contributions.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The following options have been considered for the reintroduction of development contributions to the Far North District.

Option One: Do Nothing

This option is not aligned with the commitment in the current Long-Term Plan. However, it is a viable option that should be considered in the context of three water reforms and effort required to develop a new development contributions policy versus the revenue that is forgone for collection from developers charged development contributions.

It should be noted that development contributions allow for a portion of the cost of new growth projects to be funded by developers. With no development contributions new growth projects are funded completely by Council borrowing that is passed on to ratepayer with developers not paying a direct portion of the total cost of the new growth projects in a long-term plan.

The fundamental principle behind development contributions is one of fairness, equity and who benefits both directly and indirectly from new development that the Council funds and delivers as a public good that can be used for private gain.

It is recommended that this option be explored at length alongside several other scenarios as part of more extensive development contributions project that is outlined in Option Four (Align the making of a new Development Contributions Policy with the 2024-34 Long Term Plan). By taking this approach a more complete understanding of the three waters reforms, the resource management reforms, and the local government reforms will be better understood when comes to assessing options for a new development contributions policy.

Option Two: Reintroduction of the 2004 Development Contributions Policy

Section 106 (2) of the Local Government Act requires that a development contributions policy summarise and explain the total cost of the capital expenditure identified in a long-term plan that is required to meet growth expectations. As a result of this requirement this option is neither viable nor legal as the charges in the 2004 Policy relate to previous long-term plan projects. Standing up the 2004 Policy would be illegal as the work that the charges in this policy relate to are now no longer valid. This option therefore cannot be recommended.

Option Three: Deliver to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan Resolution

It is the view of staff that the deliverables and activities listed below are required to ensure a development contributions policy can stand up to the rigours of legal challenges or judicial reviews that could follow as a result of the reintroduction of development contributions in the Far North District.

(1) A research report on best practice in development contributions following guidance from the Department of Internal Affairs and taking advice from the local government working group on development contributions.

(2) The testing of options on ratios and dollar values for development contributions for waters, social infrastructure, and reserves in alignment with the budgets put forward for growth projects in the long-term plan with internal key subject matter experts from infrastructure and finance. This will also require financial modelling.

(3) Workshops with elected members on ratios and dollar values and the criteria to be included in a new Development Contributions Policy.

(4) The drafting and approving of an amended long-term plan for public consultation, including a draft development contributions policy.

(5) Public consultation.

(6) Hearings.

(7) Deliberations.

(8) The final drafting of a new development contributions policy for adoption. To reduce risk to the Council this will require a final peer review by an external consultant and a legal review prior to final draft being put forward to Council for adoption as part of a long-term plan amendment.

(9) System reconfiguration and training of staff assigned the accountability and responsibility for the administration of development contributions ready to commence 1 July 2022.

Option One highlighted the need for further research and analysis on the ‘do nothing’ option. Further research and analysis is also required across a range of options that need to be workshopped with elected members to land on the right mix of funding between ratepayers and developers for all new growth related development that the Council is comfortable including in new development contributions policy.

Given the need for extensive research and workshopping let alone the requirement to adhere to a long-term plan amendment process that is compliant with the Local Government Act 2002 this option is not recommended.

Option Four: Align the making of a new Development Contributions Policy with 2024-34 Long Term Plan (recommended option)

Using the activities and deliverables identified in Option Three in this report the high-level indicative timeframes in Table One outline how a new Development Contributions Policy could become operative 1 July 2024 with the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

It is important to point out that this option allows time to research and then workshop options with elected members for the introduction of a new development contributions policy. Part of this research, analysis and then workshopping with elected members will ensure the ‘do nothing option’ is assessed in greater detail. This assessment will also consider the impacts of the three waters reforms, the resource management reforms and the local government reforms.

Staff recommend this option for the successful reintroduction of development contributions in the Far North District for the reasons listed in the next section of this report.

Table One: Indicative project schedule to deliver on new Development Contributions Policy that comes into effect 1 July 2024.

Activity/Deliverable	Estimated due date	Comments/Notes
Phase: Concept
Paper to Council (this paper) recommending the adoption of new development contributions in alignment with the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.	16 December 2021
Phase: Research
Communications and engagement planning commences with stakeholder and partner identification and analysis.	January – February 2022
Internal workshops on options, review of best practice development contribution policies in use across New Zealand.	February – April 2022
Review of options with an external expert and a mentor Council on development contributions.	April 2022
Project plan approved.	April 2022	From this point on in this table the dates are indicative and assumptive. With the approval of project plan will come more exact due dates, timeframes, and costings.
Phase: Conceive
Workshop on different options, timeframes, and a confirmation of the scope of the development contributions policy (which growth related development, which locations)	June 2022	This will explore differing ratios of contributions based on equity between ratepayers and developers and who benefits. It will also seek a steer on what new growth related development will be subject to development contributions and in what locations. It will also explore the ‘do nothing’ option.
Research report completed.	August 2022
Communications and engagement plan completed.	August 2022
Paper to Strategy and Policy Committee – options and recommendations for a new development contributions policy.	6 September 2022	This will also present a full assessment of the ‘do nothing option’
Local Body Elections.	8 October 2022
Phase: Design
Drafting of a development contributions policy for public consultation.	October 2022– January 2023
Communications and Engagement Plan approved.	February 2023
Approval by Council for public consultation on draft development contributions policy.	February 2023
Phase: Consult
Public consultation on draft development contributions policy.	March – May 2023	This timeframe includes hearings
Submission’s analysis.	May-July 2023
Draft new policy for adoption.	July – August 2023
Approval by Council to use a new development contributions policy to inform 2024-34 Long Term Plan.	September 2023	This informs the development of (1) The Financial Strategy and (2) The Infrastructure Strategy
Phase: Activate Policy
Adoption of a new Development Contributions Policy with 2024-34 Long Term Plan.	June 2024
New Development Contributions Policy comes into effect.	1 July 2024	Staff commences administration of the development contributions policy. Policy rules apply for developers.

Take Tūtohunga / Reasons for the recommendation

Staff recommend Option Four - Align the making of a new Development Contributions Policy with 2024-34 Long Term Plan for the following reasons;

· Time is allowed for sufficient research, analysis, and workshopping of options, including doing nothing, with elected members.

· The timeframes for the reintroduction of development contributions with the 2024-34 Long Term Plan will allow for the potential impacts of the three waters reforms, resource management reforms and local government reforms to be considered when proposing a new development contributions policy.

· The timeframes provided in Table One will result in an options and recommendations paper to the last Strategy and Policy Committee meeting of the 2019-2022 Triennium. This allows for the exiting Council to hand over to the incoming Council the next steps in the making of a new development contributions policy.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The initial project concept for Option Four (Align the making of a new Development Contributions Policy with 2024-34 Long Term Plan) identified the following indicative rough order of magnitude professional services costs as required to deliver on this project over the proposed duration of the project schedule outlined in Table One in this document.

· 2021-22 Financial Year: $50,000 in professional fees

· 2022-23-Financilal Year $35,000 in professional fees

· 2023-24 – Financial Year: $25,00 in professional fees

There are available, unallocated professional fees in the 2021-22 financial year to cover off the indicative rough order costs identified above. It is anticipated that the majority, if not all the funds allocated in the 2021-22 financial year will go towards procuring in expert advice.

Staff are proposing the allocation of $104,000 to strategy, policy and bylaw making for the 2022-23 financial year. A portion of these funds could be allocated to cover the indicative rough order of magnitude costs identified above.

A more complete detailed project plan has been identified in Table One in this document. This is scheduled to be delivered in April 2022. This plan will provide more detailed costings and therefore more detailed budget implications for the project proposed in Option Four.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The recommendation in this report does not meet any of the thresholds in the Significance and Engagement Policy.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Long Term Plan, Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy. Local Government Act 2002. Local Government Rating Act 2002.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The recommendation in this report has District wide relevance.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The recommendation in this report is not significant and has no direct implications for Māori or relates to a specific land or a body of water. This report aligns with the Treaty of Waitangi as per section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	The recommendation in this report has no direct impact of significance on any individual person, persons, specific group, or collection of groups in the Far North District.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Rough order of magnitude costings and budgetary provisions and implications have been provided in the body of the report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

[1] Refer to updated timelines in Programme Roadmap section.

[2] CouncilMARK is a measure for better community value and is New Zealand's local government excellence programme, which FNDC participate in.

[3] Work around the “Up and Out” strategy to be consolidated towards the end of 2021.

Time:	10.00 am
Location:	Virtually via Microsoft Teams