Agenda of Community Services Committee

COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
Membership:	9
Meeting Cycle:	Meets on a six weekly basis, as required or at the requisition of the Chair
Quorum:	Half of the members
Reports to:	Council

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Community Services Committee

Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Thursday 4 May 2017 commencing at 6.00pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

An apology from Mayor Wallace has been received.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

4. Recommendations to Council - 23 May 2017

a) Review of Community Funding (17/656)

Report No. CSC2017/2/107 by the Community Projects and Relationship Manager 4

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

b) Review of Community Committees (17/661)

Report No. CSC2017/2/108 by the Community Projects and Relationship Manager 36

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

5. Community Development Fund Recommended Allocations 2016/2017 (17/639)

Report No. CSC2017/2/125 by the Community Advisor Funding and Community Contracts 54

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

6. General Manager's Report (17/512)

Report No. CSC2017/2/127 by the General Manager Community Services 59

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

7. Information Item

Community Services Committee Work Programme (17/630)

Report No. CSC2017/2/71 by the Senior Committee Advisor 70

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the information contained in the report be noted.”

8. QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.

9. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

CHAIR'S RECOMMENDATION:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

10. Arts and Culture Subcommittee minutes - 11 April 2017 - Community Representation on Arts and Culture Subcommittee (17/665)

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

(A)	(B)	(C)

General subject of the matter to be considered.	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.	Ground under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution.


Arts and Culture Subcommittee minutes - 11 April 2017 - Community Representation on Arts and Culture Subcommittee.	The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)).	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as specified in Column (B) above.”

Kate Glanville

SENIOR COMMITTEE ADVISOR

4 04 May 2017

Community Services Committee

11 April 2017

File: (17/656)

Report no: CSC2017/2/107

Review of Community Funding

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Committee’s approval for officers to implement a new Community Funding Strategy.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the 2017/2022 Community Funding Strategy, attached as Appendix 2 to the report, effective from 1 July 2018;

(ii) notes that changes to the existing funding arrangements will be made incrementally over 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20; and

(iii) notes that the existing Community Funding Policy will be amended to ensure it aligns with aspirations and requirements of this proposed Community Funding Strategy.

Background

2. For over 12 years, Council has operated the current contestable/non contestable community funding model. The existing criteria which Council applies to funding requests from community groups is broad, as per Council’s Community Funding Policy:

a. Provides Not for Profits with a source of funds, allowing them to operate in the absence of sales or cash flows; and

b. The organisations activities benefit the community, ideally in ways which align with Council’s own goals and outcomes.

3. Officers want to stress that in undertaking the review of community funding they are not implying that groups with existing funding arrangements with Council have not done a good job or not provided value to ratepayers.

4. Officers identified the need to conduct a review to ensure that our investment is achieving the priorities of Council and our city.

5. It is generally recognised and acknowledged that for some of our residents Hutt City is not a great place to live, work and play. Officers believe that in the context of wider Council and Community priorities that greater benefits can be achieved through aligning community funding to these priorities and taking a more strategic and focussed approach.

6. Councillor Margaret Cousins (Chair Policy and Regulatory Committee) and former Councillor Max Shierlaw (ex Chair of Finance and Audit Committee) worked with Council officers during 2016. Council then approved a strategic review of its current community funding model.

7. The total amount being reviewed in the context of this review was $723,300. Marae funding has been excluded from this review, although could be reviewed in the future.

8. The table below sets out the 2016/17 funding allocations which have been included in this wider strategic review, which are not dissimilar from previous years.

Contestable Funding
Community Development Fund	$176,000
Small Grants	$20,000
Heritage Fund	$15,000
Non Contestable Funding
Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB)	$87,000
Youth Inspire	$70,000
Youth Wise Trust	$50,000
Community Houses	$187,300
Youth Partnership Fund	$108,000
Total community funding	$713,300

9. The table below sets out the other funding streams that Council provides (or administers) to community that are not included in this review.

Contestable
Small Events Fund	$100,000
HV Community Arts (Creative NZ)	$40,000
Arts and Culture	$100,000
Non Contestable
Marae	$200,000
Tamaiti Whangai	$20,000
Wellington Marae	$5,000
Total	$470,000

10. During 2016 officers undertook consultation regarding Council’s community funding. Results from the survey conducted by Public Voice (attached as Appendix 1 to the report), indicated that our community supports a more strategic approach, with measurable impact, sustainable practices, accountability, fair distribution of funding according to need and that funding should benefit a diverse range of people in the community.

11. Officers deliberately did not target any specific community group or sector throughout this consultation process, to ensure no one group/sector was prioritised over any other.

Discussion

12. Officers have conducted a strategic review of Council’s current approach and practices and have developed a proposed high level framework for Council’s Community Funding Strategy (attached as Appendix 2 to the report).

13. Officers are confident this proposed Community Funding Strategy will improve the overall transparency of funding practices and will ensure that Council’s investment is strongly aligned to Council and City priorities.

14. The new strategy is designed to:

· Direct funds to those who need it most, so that for all our diverse residents, the Hutt City is a great place, to live, work and play

· Improve the clarity and simplicity of our funding processes for applicants

· Encourage innovation, improve relationships and foster longer term partnerships

15. Councillor Margaret Cousins (Chair Policy and Regulatory Committee), Councillor Glenda Barratt (Chair Community Services Committee) Councillor Josh Briggs (Deputy Chair Community Services Committee), and officers worked alongside Kate Frykberg to develop a proposed Community Funding Strategy – based on feedback via the Citizens Panel Survey and aspirations for these funds to be aligned to Council’s strategic priorities. Ms Frykberg is Chair of Philanthropy NZ, an independent committee member of the Ngāi Tahu fund, and was previously Executive Director of Todd Foundation.

16. The new proposed community funding strategy will align directly to Council’s vision and will see our investment directed to ‘Improving equity across our city’ through:

a. Increasing access to opportunities and resources: We want all our residents, particularly the young and old, to be able to easily access what they need to live a good life here in Hutt City. Our funding will favour initiatives that increase equity of access.

b. Building participation and a sense of belonging: We all lead safer and more fulfilling lives if we have strong connections to those round us – family, friends, community and colleagues. Our funding will target initiatives that reduce social isolation, help people from every culture and background to feel accepted and respected, and encourage all residents to take an active role in their community.

c. Strengthening local leadership: Everyone can make positive change in their own lives and for those around them. We want to support local leaders to lead local solutions, and our funding will favour initiatives with strong community involvement and leadership.

17. If the funding being requested by groups fits with our vision and goals above, then we will look for groups who:

a. Clearly make a difference: Is this initiative likely to make – or already making - a demonstrated difference in the goals above? We understand that complex problems don’t usually have simple solutions, and we don’t require fancy reporting, just a sensible approach, learning as you go and a clear way of showing how what you did relates to what you wanted to achieve.

b. Collaborative approaches: None of us can change the world alone. We prefer initiatives where people and organisations work together well; for example, sharing resources or working for a collectively agreed goal.

c. Well managed organisations: We look for good governance, credible leadership, sustainable finance, a strong team and open, honest relationships. We understand that all groups are different, and we don’t try to compare a local community initiative with a large, established organisation. But we do expect every group we fund to have good people who run things well.

d. Innovative approaches: New ideas aligned to our vision are always welcome; we have created a special fund to provide seed funding for just this (see below). We understand that new ideas don’t always work and we encourage giving things a go.

e. Community Ownership: We like initiatives which are led by local communities and we like the concept of “nothing about us without us”. Whichever community is served - for example, the elderly, people experiencing disability, youth - we prefer to fund initiatives where members of this community are a key part of decision-making.

18. The new proposed Community Funding Strategy will have two funding streams and implementation of this model will be incrementally over three years (attached as Appendix 3 to the report).

a. Kakano Fund: Kākano means seed, and this fund provides seed funding for new ideas that meet our vision in a give-it-a-go, safe-to-try environment.

b. Mahia Atu Fund: Mahia Atu loosely translates to “Make it Happen.” This fund is for community initiatives that are already up and running, meet our vision and are clearly making a difference in our communities. The Mahia Atu fund will consist of two funding streams:

i. Mahia Atu Community fund- provides one or two year funding for good community initiatives. If an initiative is a strong fit to our vision and is beginning to show good results, they would apply here.

ii. Mahia Atu Partnership Funding – provides a small number of organisations with funding and provides longer term funding and a partnership approach (three to five years). If an initiative is a strong fit to our vision, can demonstrate outstanding results and strong collaboration, they would apply here.

19. If Council endorses the new high level framework for this new approach to community funding, then:

a. Councillors and officers will invest significant time alongside Kate Frykberg in developing the finer details that sit below this new strategy; and

b. Councillors and officers will remain committed to ensuring adequate communications and training are provided to community groups so they are well informed and prepared for the changes.

Options

20. The committee approves the new Community Funding Strategy and implementation plan.

21. The committee does not approve the new Community Funding Strategy and the existing community funding strategy continues.

Consultation

22. Initially the wider community was consulted to understand wider support for a change to the existing funding model. Communities were consulted via the Citizens Panel. This was made available both online and hard copies available in all Libraries and Community Hubs. 463 responses were received, which is considered an acceptable sample in term so reliability.

23. Survey Pre testing was completed with the following before the survey was made available to the public:

a. Max Shierlaw (ex Finance and Audit Chair and Councillor), Councillor Margaret Cousins (Chair of Policy and Regulations Committee), Safe Hutt Valley Coordinator, local Wainuiomata Resident, Council Divisional Managers of Strategy and Planning, City Promotions and Libraries.

b. Representatives from the following groups: Ignite Sport, Dress for Success, Youth Infusion, and Leisure Active

24. Results from the survey conducted by Public Voice (attached as Appendix 1), showed strong support for a new looking model:

a. 81% supported a more strategic approach to Council’s annual investment in the community.

b. 79% supported a funding model that encourages new initiatives or programmes.

c. 80% believes it is ‘very important’ or ‘extremely important’ that Council’s annual investment in the community can be measured, so both Council and the wider community can see the impact of this funding.

d. 72% believe that it is ‘very important’ or ‘extremely important’ that Community groups operate sustainable practices.

e. A majority believed that community groups should be held accountable and deliver measureable community outcomes.

25. Officers also had face to face meetings with Wellington Community Trust, Todd Foundation, JR McKenzie and Nikau Foundation to better understand their funding models.

26. Since developing the proposed new Funding Strategy, Councillors and officers met with the Chairs of the Community Groups who have a long term or significant funding arrangement with Council. These groups were: Community Houses, Citizens Advice Bureau, and Youth Inspire. This enabled the new proposed high level framework of the community funding strategy to be shared with them and provided an opportunity to provide feedback and talk about the potential impact this change will have on them.

27. Feedback received by the Chairs of the Community Groups was varied. Some supported and understood the need for funding to be better aligned to Council’s strategic priorities and saw this change as opportunity. Others raised concerns specifically to the detail of this strategy which is yet to be defined (eg criteria, eligibility, application process, funding rounds and frequency) and lack of financial security this change may bring.

Legal Considerations

28. There are no other legal considerations. Marae Funding has not been included within the scope of this review as under the Local Government Act 2002, we would be required to carry out a more comprehensive consultation process which would be well beyond our Council boundaries and would likely include wider Iwi and central government involvement.

Financial Considerations

29. There are no other financial implications. The recommended new approach is essentially about reallocating existing budget already included in Council’s Long Term Plan.

Other Considerations

30. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government act.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Community Funding Survey Results	11
2 ⇩	Proposed Community Funding Strategy	28
3 ⇩	Proposed Community Funding Implementation Plan	35

Author: Melanie Laban

Community Projects and Relationship Manager

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager Community Services

Attachment 2

Proposed Community Funding Strategy

What does the new funding strategy aim to achieve?

The diagram on the previous page summarises our new community funding strategy, and below is more detail on each part of the proposed strategy.

The vision

The vision for our community funding is:

“For all residents, Hutt City is a great place, to live, work and play”

This statement reflects the Council’s vision for our city, and most Hutt City residents know that this city is indeed a great place. But for too many of our residents, life is difficult. We don’t think it is good enough for our city to be a great place for some of us, or even most of us. We want Hutt City to be a great place for everyone - and our community funding will focus on those who need it most.

How Hutt City Council Community Funding contributes to this vision

How do we best contribute to this vision? Ensuring everyone thrives requires improving equity and resilience across our city. We plan to contribute to this through:

· Increasing access to opportunities and resources: We want all our residents, particularly the young and old, to be able to easily access what they need to live a good life here in Hutt City. Our funding will favour initiatives that increase equity of access.

· Building participation and a sense of belonging: We all lead safer and more fulfilling lives if we have strong connections to those round us – family, friends, community and colleagues. Our funding will target initiatives that reduce social isolation, help people from every culture and background to feel accepted and respected, and encourage all residents to take an active role in their community.

· Strengthening local leadership: Everyone can make positive change in their own lives and for those around them. We want to support local leaders to lead local solutions, and our funding will favour initiatives with strong community involvement and leadership.

What we will look for

How will we decide which funding applications will receive funding? First we will look for a good fit to the vision and goals above, and then we look for:

· Clearly making a difference: Is this initiative likely to make – or already making - a demonstrated difference in the goals above? We understand that complex problems don’t usually have simple solutions, and we don’t require fancy reporting, just a sensible approach, learning as you go and a clear way of showing how what you did relates to what you wanted to achieve.

· Collaborative approaches: None of us can change the world alone. We prefer initiatives where people and organisations work together well; for example, sharing resources or working for a collectively agreed goal.

· Well managed organisations: We look for good governance, credible leadership, sustainable finance, a strong team and open, honest relationships. We understand that all groups are different, and we don’t try to compare a local community initiative with a large, established organisation. But we do expect every group we fund to have good people who run things well.

· Innovative approaches: New ideas aligned to our vision are always welcome; in fact we have created a special fund to provide seed funding for just this (see below). We understand that new ideas don’t always work and we encourage giving things a go.

· Community Ownership: We like initiatives which are led by local communities and we like the concept of “nothing about us without us”. Whichever community is served - for example, the elderly, people experiencing disability, youth - we prefer to fund initiatives where members of this community are a key part of decision-making.

How the new funds will work for organisations seeking funding

Our new funding strategy will have two funds that applicants can apply for funding from:

Kākano Fund


What is the purpose of this fund?	Kākano means seed, and this fund provides seed funding for new ideas that meet our vision in a give-it-a-go, safe-to-fail environment.
Who is it for?	Got a new idea you would like to try? Apply here!
How big is the fund?	This is a small fund and is likely to provide $30,000 to $50,000 per year.
How much can I apply for?	It depends on your idea. It could be $500 for a new initiative on your street. Or if you have a big new idea you could consider applying for the total amount of money in the fund, although of course that would mean that if your idea is funded then others would miss out. Anything will be considered; we look for costs that are fair and reasonable for the idea you propose.
How long is the funding for?	The Kākano fund provides funding for one year only. You are welcome to apply each year – but not for the same initiative because this fund is for new ideas only.
When can I apply?	This fund, if approved, would come into effect in July 2018. There will be one funding round per year.
How do I apply?	The applications process will be quick and simple via an online application form.
What is the decision process?	Funding decisions will be made by Council officers.
What is the reporting process?	We will bring all recipients of the Kākano fund together towards the end of the year so that you can report on your idea in person to us and to your peers. No paper required.

Mahia Atu Fund


What is the purpose of this fund?	“Mahia Atu” loosely translates to “Make it Happen.” This fund is for community initiatives that are already up and running, meet our vision and are clearly making a difference in our communities. The Mahia Atu fund will consist of two funding streams, both using a similar application process. · Mahia Atu Community Funding provides one or two year funding for good community initiatives. · Mahia Atu Partnership Funding will be awarded to a small number of organisations each year and provides longer term funding and a partnership approach.
	Mahia Atu Community Funding	Mahia Atu Partnership Funding
Who is it for?	If your initiative is a strong fit to our vision and is beginning to show good results, apply here.	If your initiative is a strong fit to our vision, can demonstrate outstanding results and strong collaboration, apply here.
How do I apply?	The application process will be via a clear and easy online application form. You are welcome to phone us for advice on your funding application.	We suggest that you call us before applying here so we can give you a steer on how this funding works. The application form is the same as Mahia Atu Community Funding but includes quite a few additional questions, and we will also visit in person and undertake comprehensive reference checking.
How long is the funding for?	One or two years.	Three to five years. During this time you will also receive support and partnership from Hutt City Council to help your initiative grow.
How big is the fund?	Initially approximately $100,000 and over time growing to approximately $250,000.	Initially approximately $300,000 and over time growing to approximately $500,000
How much can I apply for?	There is no limit to the amount you can apply for other than the total size of the fund. However we would generally expect most grants to be medium sized, eg between $5,000 and $35,000 per year.	There is no limit to the amount you can apply for other than the size of the fund. However we would generally expect most grants to be larger, eg between $40,000 and $100,000 per year.
When can I apply?	The Mahia Atu funds, if approved, would come into effect in July 2018. There will be one funding round per year.
What if I want to be considered for both the Mahi Atu Community Fund and the Mahi Atu Partnership Fund?	No problem. Applications which are not selected for Mahia Atu Partnership Funding are automatically considered for the Mahia Atu Community Funding, assuming you would like this to happen. You just need to know that the application and selection process for Mahia Atu Partnership Funding will require quite a lot more work than applying for Mahia Atu Community Funding.
What is the decision process?	Both Mahia Atu Community Funding and Mahia Atu Partnership Funding are decided by a committee including both Hutt City Councillors and Hutt City Council officers.
What is the reporting process?	We will bring all recipients of Mahia Atu funding together towards the end of the year so that you can report on your initiative in person to us and to your peers. Some additional reporting may be required, particularly for Mahia Atu Partnership Funding recipients.

How the funds work together

We’ve designed these funds so that initiatives which improve equity across our city and contribute to our vision can be supported at all stages of their development. We understand that not every good idea works in practice, and the Kākano fund is designed to simply give things a go. Mahia Atu Community Funding is the next stage along; there is room for experimentation and occasional failures here too. Mahia Atu Partnership Funding is designed for robust and impactful initiatives – the ultimate aim of great ideas. Here’s how it works:

Of course, not every initiative we fund will follow this process – and you are welcome to apply for whatever suits your work best.

How to find out more

If you would like to talk to us about this strategy, just give us a call. We are happy to have phone conversations or meet in person.

Please contact:

Debbie Hunter

Community Advisor Funding and Community Contracts

Phone:04 570 6955

Email: Debbie.Hunter@huttcity.govt.nz

Melanie Laban

Community Projects and Relationship Manager

Phone: 04 570 6710,

Email: Melanie.Laban@huttcity.govt.nz

36 04 May 2017

Community Services Committee

12 April 2017

File: (17/661)

Report no: CSC2017/2/108

Review of Community Committees

Purpose of Report

1. For the Committee to agree to the recommendations contained in this report.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the establishment of three Community Panels; and

(ii) notes the new Community Panel approach would be reviewed after
12 months.

Background

2. In late 2016 Council agreed to review the current Community Committee structure. Council agreed for officers to seek community feedback on a concept for a new approach. This was undertaken in two parts: Citizens Panel and conversations with previous Community Committee members and other key stakeholders.

3. Citizens Panel results indicated 49% supported the Community Panel proposal as it was presented, 28% did not support the proposal and 23% said they did not know.

4. 77% believed that Community Committees or Community Panels are required for democratic representation in Hutt City.

5. Those who did support the proposal were attracted by the cost savings and the reduction of bureaucracy generally.

6. Many people who did not support the proposal expressed concern about relying on Councillors and Council officers to ensure that robust and meaningful community engagement was undertaken – they did not believe that this would happen.

7. Some feedback also presented concerns regarding the possibility of having Boards operating in parts of Hutt City without an equivalent in other parts of the city.

8. Feedback was also received that while a North Eastern Panel appeared logical, there was a significant enough difference (geography, community issues, other) between the Western Hills and Central Ward to warrant consideration of separate panels or committees.

9. Respondents felt that the proposal was not sufficiently developed for them to be able to form a real view of the advantages or disadvantages of changing from Community Committees to Community Panels. They were, however, in favour of change that would mean that communities accessed more funding for projects in their areas, they liked the idea of having panel members being more active in the community and they were attracted by the greater level of flexibility the proposal seemed to offer. They wanted people who have the capabilities needed to be responsible for funding decisions.

10. Officers believe that the proposed Community Panel approach takes the above into account and provides a hybrid model for consideration.

11. A full summary of the feedback is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Discussion

12. In consideration of all of the feedback, officers propose the following model.

13. Hybrid of both the existing structure and proposed new concept, with three Community Panels established : North Eastern, Central and Western Hills.

14. The Community Panels would fulfil the following key functions:

a. Representation – discuss, debate and provide feedback to Council on all important local issues, city wide matters of significance, Annual Plans and policy setting.

b. Manage a new Local Community Projects fund.

c. Manage the Community Engagement Fund.

d. Mentor, coach and introduce new people to Local Government governance.

15. The Community Panel structure would consist of:

a. Five members (excluding elected Councillors)

b. North Eastern Panel – to include the 4 local ward Councillors.

· Two panels of seven and the North Eastern nine.

c. Each panel to appoint a Chair.

16. Council officers will call for expressions of interests to fill the community based positions on the Community Panels. The Mayor and relevant Ward Councillors will make the final decision on Panel membership. Those who express an interest will be expected to:

a. Demonstrate a real commitment and passion to local community.

b. Demonstrated ability to work proactively and constructively with a team.

c. Clear evidence of a connection and strong networks with local community groups and residents.

d. Live in the local community.

e. An interest in local body matters and/or including an interest in standing for Council in the future.

f. Demonstrated ability to represent their community – in the community and in formal public settings, including Council.

17. As well as considering the above criteria, the Mayor and Ward Councillors will also take into account each individual:

a. Professional skills.

b. Existing membership to community groups – eg Residents Associations, Marae, School Boards etc.

18. The total budget associated with Community Committees per triennium is $550,000 (excluding the Community Engagement Fund). The table below breaks down how this funding will be distributed under the proposed Community Panel model:

a. Honorariums $750 per member per annum (excludes Councillors).

b. Admin Budget - $2,000 per annum per panel – to cover meeting related costs.

c. Training/Professional Development - $2,000 per annum per panel.

Per Triennium	TOTAL	Central	Western Hills	North Eastern
Honorariums	$33,750	$11,250	$11,250	$11,250
Engagement Fund (no change)	$31,626	$9,320	$6,201	$16,106
Community Projects Fund	$480,000	$120,000	$120,000	$240,000
Admin Budget	$18,000	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000
Training/PD	$18,000	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000

19. There are no changes to the Community Engagement Fund; this will continue to operate as it currently does which is “To support community development or community events in the local community with the objective of strengthening and building community”.

20. The Community Projects Fund will be used to fund one or more local community projects per triennium. Projects are to develop community assets that are not able to be funded in Council’s Long Term Plan. Where ongoing maintenance and/or other costs are required after completion, the projects need to be formally agreed with the relevant division of Council.

21. Community Projects Fund – basic guidelines and criteria:

a. To be used to fund one or more local community projects per triennium.

b. Projects are to develop community assets that are not able to be funded in Council’s Long Term Plan.

c. Community assets include playgrounds, street furniture, public art, tree planting, lighting, safety improvements, way finding, signage, improvements to existing public places and facilities.

d. These community assets need to be in public spaces.

e. The development of new assets needs to be in accordance with Council strategies or plans.

f. Where ongoing maintenance and/or other costs are required after completion, the projects need to be formally agreed with the relevant division of Council.

22. A fair, transparent and simple criteria to guide panels to manage this budget will be established if this approach is approved.

23. There are some key changes that will take place if this new proposed Community Panel approach is adopted. Changes include:

a. Significant new fund for local community projects.

b. Loss of salaries for members.

c. Increased focus on meaningful representation and providing feedback to elected members and the full Council.

d. The following previous delegations of Community Committees will cease and be managed by officers and or Council Committees:

· Traffic management issues.

· Naming of new roads and alterations.

· Official naming of parks, reserves and sports grounds.

· Removal and/or planting of street trees.

· Granting of leases and licences in terms of community groups using Council owned properties.

· Granting of rights of way and other easements.

24. Increased emphasis on providing an introduction to existing and potential new people to local government – an opportunity for potential future local body candidates to gain experience and insight.

25. The community will continue to have the opportunity to provide feedback on all of those areas that the Community Committees would normally have had delegation for, through making submissions and through attendance at appropriate Council meetings.

26. Alongside the panels, Council officers will be committed to ensuring the local community voice is captured with regards to issues affecting their community. Our libraries and integrated hubs will play an increased role in capturing these voices. They will ensure:

a. Greater visibility to the community of issues arising through Council meetings that relate to their specific communities.

b. They are accessed by community, and seen as the place to find out more about Council processes, meetings, and highlight any issues within their communities which could be anything from roading, traffic, safety, dogs, through to house emissions.

27. This new model will require Council officers in our libraries and hubs to take a greater leadership role as a conduit between Council and community, with specific reference to items that might be moving through Council meetings that community should be aware of and able to provide feedback on. In communities like the Western Hills, where there is not a hub or library, Council officers will ensure Residents’ Associations are aware equally informed.

28. If Council approves this new proposed Community Panel approach, officers would seek Expressions of Interests in June/July 2017 and will hold first meetings in August 2017. The frequency and timings of these meetings will be at the discretion of each panel.

29. General administration support would be provided by Secretariat Services, and a more informal approach towards these meetings will be suggested, but ultimately up to each panel how they are operated to ensure most efficient use of time and resources.

30. Given one year has already lapsed within the current triennium, this new proposed Community Panel approach would run for the remaining two years and could then be considered as part of the Representation Review, as a possible approach for all parts of the city.

31. Benefits of the proposed model include: retention of Tier 2 representation with greater flexibility for community consultation on both important local and city-wide issues; an increase in local community engagement; new funding for local community asset based projects; and opportunities for new people, with a different skillset and knowledge of their community to be involved.

32. Possible disadvantages include: the perception that because the new model will be more informal than formal in structure, community feedback will not be taken seriously; panel meetings could become unproductive given informal nature; and possible conflict between community asset being developed and the appropriate Council division formally agreeing to the ongoing maintenance or other costs post completion.

Options

33. Status quo – four Community Committees – same functions as previously held in the last triennium.

34. Two Community Panels – as per consulted on.

35. Four Community Panels – variation of the model consulted on.

36. Hybrid of both the existing structure and proposed new concept – two, three or four panels.

37. Do nothing until the full formal Representation Review has been completed during 2017/18.

Consultation

38. Citizens Panel survey was conducted and conversations were held with previous Community Committee members and Chairs. A full summary of that feedback is attached as Appendix 1.

Other Considerations

39. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the Local Government Act.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Community Panels Survey Appendix 1	42

Author: Melanie Laban

Community Projects and Relationship Manager

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager Community Services

Attachment 1

Community Panels Survey Appendix 1

COMMUNITY PANELS SURVEY

Survey Results

Two hundred and forty nine (249) people on the Citizen's Panel responded to the survey out of a possible 1983. One hundred and fourteen respondents (114) were from the randomly selected sample^{^[1]} and one hundred and thirty five (135) from the self-selected sample.^{^[2]} The response rate for the survey was low and does not provide a statistically robust result on which to base decisions.

Forty nine per cent (49%) supported the Community Panel proposal, twenty eight per cent (28%) did not support the proposal and twenty three per cent (23%) said that didn’t know.

Seventy seven per cent (77%) believe that Community Committees or Community Panels are required for democratic representation in Hutt City.

The highest level of support for the proposal came from the Western (47%), Eastern (47%) and Central (52%) wards with the Northern ward split evenly between those who supported it and those that did not (37%). In the Western Ward 31% did not support the proposal. Democratic representation was valued highly by all areas of the city in particular the Northern ward (92%).

THEMES SUMMARY

The key issue for respondents was ensuring that whatever system was used provided communities with a voice at the Council table and greater involvement of local groups within the community. Many people who did not support the proposal expressed concern about relying on Councillors and Council officers to ensure that robust and meaningful community engagement was undertaken – they did not believe that this would happen. Another key concern was the perceived inequality between areas in the city if Community Committees did not exist while Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata continued to have Community Boards – “equality between areas is justified, that is why they (Community Committees) are there at present”.

The ability of only two Panels to represent the diversity of interested views in the areas concerned was also questioned – “Hutt City population is very diverse - ethnically, culturally, socially and age. Two panels could not represent such a range fairly”.

Some suggested that Community Boards should be replaced by panels also if this was to happen for the rest of the city. People did not think that two Community Panels would be able to effectively represent the broad areas the Panel would cover and preferred having four panels rather than two.

On the other hand, those who did support the proposal were attracted by the cost savings and the reduction of bureaucracy generally. These people did not perceive existing Community Committees and Community Boards as doing a good job representing the interests of their community and felt that members were more concerned about pushing their own agendas “Our Wainuiomata local community committee is ineffective and anti-business growth” and “members just take us for granted and do and say whatever they want”.

Respondents felt that the proposal was not sufficiently developed for them to be able to form a real view of the advantages or disadvantages of changing from Community Committees to Community Panels. They were, however, in favour of change that would mean that communities accessed more funding for projects in their areas, they liked the idea of having panel members being more active in the community and they were attracted by the greater level of flexibility the proposal seemed to offer. They wanted people who have the capabilities needed to be responsible for funding decisions.

Representation

Fair representation for all areas of the city was a key concern for all respondents. There was a perception that those communities with Community Boards received greater levels of representation and therefore funding because they had more “political clout” than the areas without Community Boards. People did not want to be treated differently simply based on where they live.

Because it is a key concern, the comments regarding representation have been analysed separately below. Verbatim comments are attached as Appendix I.

Those who supported the Community Panel proposal:

· Thought that communities would be better served by Community Panel as this would get more locals involved

· Wanted more autonomy to be given to local groups to deliver projects locally

· Thought two panels would be sufficient

· Saw it as an opportunity for the city to move into the 21^st century in terms of representation

· That it would be helpful to have a Council officer involved to “keep discussion grounded and focussed”

Those who didn’t support the Community Panel proposal were concerned about:

· The watering down of local representation – dilution of the “local voice”

· The difficulty for only two Community Panels to be able to fairly represent such large, diverse areas of the city. (There is a definite preference for four Community Panels if this is the model chosen from those supporting the proposal also)

· What would happen to the other delegations that Community Committees currently have

· Lack of trust in Councillors – don’t think that they will fairly represent the views of the community but rather favour their own views

The comments from the group that didn’t think that there should be any second tier representation focused on:

· Councillors being more than capable of representing local views – ample opportunity for residents to speak directly to their Councillors

· Thought that Community Boards should also be disestablished

· Community Committees are not democratic because they are appointed

· Better use of ratepayer resources

Conclusion

The response rate for the survey was low and does not provide a statistically robust result on which to base decisions. However, the responses do provide a reasonable “feel” for where people generally stand on the issue of Community Committees or Community Panels.

Many felt the proposal was not adequately developed and this resulted in a high number of “Don’t know” responses to the question of whether or not they supported the proposal. However, a very high proportion (77%) believes that Community Committees/panels are required for democratic representation in Hutt City. Only 8% of people responded “Don’t know” to this question.

Representation is important – how this is achieved is, perhaps, less important. If the proposal for Community Panels can be developed further and clearly show how the desire for representation can be accommodated and enhanced then it is highly likely that it will receive broader community support.

Attachment 1

Community Panels Survey Appendix 1

Supports current Community Committees format

Wants different representation model

Representation

· Going from the current 4 committees to 2 panels is not a good idea as this will water down local representation from local areas in the Hutt, the current system better represents the interests of people and areas of Lower Hutt.

· Because with the current situation there is a broader /wider exchange of views and input into the decision making

· Reduced representation, current committees work well

· The Community Committees will be in closer touch with the needs & wants of the people. By reducing them from 4 to 2 a larger percentage of the population will be alienated.

· I think it is better spread with the 4 committees

· It further distances representatives from the communities they are there to represent

· Poorer access and representation - some areas will be swamped by bigger neighbouring areas. There is a lot of diversity between LH suburbs - we need to fight to retain that.

· I do not think that two committees will give the best coverage

· It proposes mergers of areas without commonality and which will also reduce the overall number of appointed people. I think the current number of committees and members is about right so each area of the Western Hills, for example, gets a member. It is also from these people we start preparing future councillors. Ideally I would like to see community boards for these areas or an election to choose the members, as was done in 1998, the first year there was a Western Ward committee (I was its deputy chair)

· Reduces community input. Funding role is good but why at expense of other functions?

· The council never listens to what the people want any way

· It gives more weight to appointed councillors personal views by cutting down on overall voting numbers. It makes it harder for locals to have access to committee members

· Grassroots advocacy is key. With these panels we will lose that across most of our city.

· Don’t want to lose local input

· Community representatives need to be elected, as per Community Boards. One uniform process across the whole city

· The community committees are elected from local constituents who have a special interest in the local people.

· The panel will not truly represent the area. Ward representative are just that & an integral part of Council; Council alone should spend my rates --- they are not available as a gift even if the gift is wrapped up as a saving

· Equality between areas is justified, that is why they are there at present.

· I think with four you can get a real coal face viewpoint.

· A trend away from close community representation of issues arising in local areas

· I think what you have now works and that the area covered by just two groups would be too big. They would not be able to represent the local interest as well

· I believe that communities need as much representation as possible. Currently there are 2 levels Councillors and the various community representatives who work with and are other eyes and ears to the council. To take away that source of representation for issues will be a backward step and reduced source of info to Council

· I believe the committee has more power than a panel

· Seems a step towards centralisation. Present setup is more personal

· It seems, from the information in the linked documents that too much will be taken away from the community voice. Also that the proposed 2 panels represent areas that are too big for panel members to be able to properly understand the concerns of the people they represent

· Is a dilution of our local voice which needs to be considered by a wider elected group of officials. Too few can make bad decisions without good interactive debates around projects

· Community Committee are the voice for residents and advocate for them on Council and City matters, and make submissions on their behalf. Second Tier Representation is important as they represent the people's voice

· I believe it is important to improve and progress, rather than side-line - which appears to be the outcome from the proposed panels.

· I believe the current community panels have (or should) a close vested interest in their local communities and their needs

· We elect councillors to govern our city, I believe there is no need for further panels

· I feel that the people who live in these communities are the experts on local goings on. Not sure how the currently elected ward reps will feel about this demotion, maybe?

· The reduction to 2 panels, given the size of the Hutt Valley seems fair

· Think it’s a good idea to get more people involved in the community, fairer decision will be made

· Giving some autonomy to local people doing local projects, alongside the larger picture of work done for the whole city is s a great way to engage people in local projects and also raise the profile of council overall in a positive way

· Community involvement critical

· Better connection with communities

· It appears to be a better representation and off sets any imbalance in Council, i.e. hopefully things can't get pushed through by one interested side

· Just think it's a great thing to move the Hutt valley ahead

· It will allow proper community input to issues

· It gives the rate payer a say in the running of the City

· Change

· It just seems fair

· It is a chance to place issues in front of Council

· Local issues should be deal with by locals. Not someone sitting/ living in another area. I think there are many other venues that people can use to interact with Council. It is probably more useful for them to go directly to their local Councillor than a Community Committee member

· They should get rid of Community Boards also

· This is a better model than the current community board model. If there were no community boards, then I would not support community panels, as there are ample opportunities for residents to bring their issues or concerns to the attention of Council

· The community could be represented effectively and democratically by 2 panels

· I think it would be a better system

· Everyone should have a say if they are ratepayers in the city.

· Good to have a Council officer on the panel - will help to keep discussion grounded and focussed. More efficient use of resources. Still provides good community representation so long as representatives are carefully chosen

· It seems like a better idea than what is currently happening. Having two panels to decide funding will hopefully bring more activity to the Hutt City, especially with Petone growing in stature (Bunnings, Kmart and possibly Rebel Sport and Briscoes). If it gets more community involvement, I'm all for it. I just want to make sure that the community is involved, and that key responsibilities of the current structure are not lost, and are delegated properly

· To get a fair representation for the community

· Probably better representation - committee sounds rather too inflexible

· Better use of ratepayers' money and resources. Councillors are already being paid and should be able to make these calls as required

· Two panels instead of four seems more appropriate for the size of the Hutt Valley

· Only residents know more about what is required in their area

· Representatives, make the effort to approach communities to get real opinions. The other options members just take us for granted and do and say whatever they want!

· The changes represent the current needs and issues of the time zone we are now in, to better serve the city

· The community should have a say in the area so something is needed. I am not convinced that the community committees really represented the community so something else is needed

· The reduction in people involved should make it easier to get a consensus of what the community wants/needs. There will also be a reduction in the costs of the community boards

· Seems to me this is a double up on what elected councillors should be doing. As Committee Members are appointed the set up doesn't appear democratic

· There are too many area representatives in a group of two pushing for their areas

· I only get to vote every three years. At times the person I would have liked to represent me didn’t get enough votes. At least there will be another level or group to communicate within the area

Appendix I

Appendix II

	Wants different representation model	Supports current Community Committees format
Cost/funding	· It seems more appropriate to have people representing who are interested, rather than just being paid to do the job. It looks like a. Enter spread of people · The costs savings can be re-channelled back to the community. · Because there are far too many paid representatives putting upward pressure on rates increases. The council is to top heavy · Cost efficiencies. Time efficiencies · Community based is better than salaried people · More efficient · It sounds like a good proposal to consolidate the functions of 4 groups to two panels · More money going back to the projects · Seems it could be equally effective as status quo but a bit cheaper - if I am reading it right · Because the proposal includes requirements for panel members to be active in the community and/or to show capability of managing funds · Saves money and people can go directly to Council or their councillor on any issue · So that rate payers can have a say what their hard earned money is spent on and not wasted by the bureaucrats that so called run the place, they have the cash and spend it on useless initiatives · It looks like it would cost the rate payer less, and it looks like it would be less involved for the panel members than current committee requirements · Better possibility for representative discretionary spending on projects · Out reallocates funds from the pockets of the few into the hands of the many, but retains local representation · Cost efficiencies, no need for 4 · I believe it is a better use of funds to be injected into community projects. I believe the system will initiate more community engagement if the public know they can apply for financial assistance for projects rather than have current Committees as advocates to present project ideas to council that have to be worked into annual plans and often rejected by Councillors from other wards · Four is too many. I think 2 would be cost effective and would work better · It costs less. It still ensures there is a further tier of resident representation on Council · Because the current committees do nothing except pay the members · Money would be used in community instead of on salaries. Hopefully if would speed up decisions · They are a huge cost currently and the new proposal will reduce the overall costs BUT only if there is sufficient representation of all areas where the councillors are involved · Cheaper administration	· I believe we have enough cost with the council democratically elected who should do the job without adding cost · How about focussing on reducing rates, building a kitty for future projects? Remember the credit crunch? Companies saved at tax & rate payers’ expense. Flows unto future generations if current politicians are allowed to get away with this · If you don't pay people, there is less chance of getting quality decision-makers and more of getting people with nothing better to do · The sums to be allocated are trifling & will result in the loony left/ greens frittering it on feel good projects. · Use powers to allow committees to apply for funding for community grants to fund projects by all committees and boards · The funding of community projects will be entirely subjective · It looks more like a cost cutting exercise and more work being given to Councillors and Council officers who are already dealing with BAU
Effectiveness	· Having less committees in theory more decisions get done · It provides a more useful and targeted role for the community panels and also gives them meaningful decisions that will directly support local community organisations · The proposal brings community involvement and brings a greater sense of ownership through participation · Sounds less complicated than we have at moment - not that I know much about the committees · Our Wainuiomata local community committee is ineffective and anti-business growth. Statements from them have shown a clear lack of understanding about our business population and have done more damage than good, effectively halting the ability for Wainuiomata to grow businesses and employ locals · It sounds to me like the proposed changing will make the function of the committees more problem solving focussed. Taking lease granting and naming of street off their duty for example makes sense as libraries and hubs can be used to consult the public on those. Inviting people to apply for a spot on a committee in their area will hopefully bring a certain standard of people in. Strong community involvement definitely needs to be an expectation and other expectations need to have a clear guideline for applicants. Who does in the end choose the members appointment? Should this be done like an election in each area, so members of the public can vote for their preferred members that has been narrowed down to say 12 candidates of which 4 are to be installed · I think there are too many voices with 4 committees and a much more honed process would work better to get stuff done and project funding be more targeted at the greatest need · Simplification! · I believe the people making decisions should be those actively working and living in their communities · For the size of Hutt City. I think 2 is sufficient if the appointees are able to have the ability to accept the extra responsibility and communicate with both the councillors and ratepayers · I think that volunteers working with Council Officers in their areas could be more effective than the paid committee · A way to spend more money on outcomes for the Hutt. Likely to be synergies from combining committees and better consistency of outcomes for the benefit of the Hutt. Also, you wouldn't be proposing it if you didn't think it was better than the status quo	· Council Community Committees should be able to take positions on council issues, create policy reports that represent the issues and positions of that committee for their ward. It is not clear in the community panel proposal whether they would have those powers. If they do have those powers then I would support the change however, committees should be able to take positions, offer critique and advice, advocate for their community and support policy proposals such as youth, crime, safety, infrastructure, parks and gardens and traffic. The proposal does not make clear they could do that · Because the committee are more connected with their local people where as a panel with fewer people would only be partial to our community
Efficiency	· It's great to have people who are not as busy as the local council members able to make some minor decisions for the community · Less bureaucracy · I believe the reduction from four to two panels will result in greater efficiency · Community engagement and community input into key projects is paramount in a democratic society. The proposal maintains the status quo whilst becoming more efficient · Sounds simpler than Community Committees and the panels have councillors and council officers represented on them · It provides the opportunity for delegated decision making on focused areas of community activity but without involving a significant administrative role · From what I understand this would mean one tier less of bureaucracy - elected councillors should step up and be more active · Hopefully it will streamline procedures
Diversity	· Provide opportunities for community to become more involved · Broader range of opinion that will be based on experiences within the community · To give the public a say. I think the public involvement/ representation should be refreshed regularly and should be of mixed gender, race, age or demography to get a fair presentation. And need to go through a fair screening process · Better to have more input from different angles and people · Gives more community involvement · I want to see people that are in touch with what is going on · Good to get community involvement · Panels need to take a wider view of the Hutt and not just individual areas - Hutt wide priorities · Better and more wide spread representation of the community · Local communities know the local issues better than a central committee · Feel that more diverse panels representing a wider proportion of residents in the Hutt Region · Because it is inclusive of the community · Might get the community more involved · I'm still on the fence but the reality is that the current make up of committee is often too heavy with council people and we need a diverse range of community people involved without their own agendas so this may allow it to happen	· This city has many diverse communities and needs more, not fewer panels. · For the size and diversity of the city, four communities is about right. · Hutt City population is very diverse - ethnically, culturally, socially and age. Two panels could not represent such a range fairly. I am not against investigating another way of representation, but it does need to take into account the diversity of the population · Two Committees/panels not enough for the size of the city. · I would want to know that with only two panels that a cross section of all communities that 'used' to exist as communities were represented
Not enough coverage		· Two groups to look at the entire city is not enough, I prefer the current 4 group system · We need more than 2 committees to decide things · Community committees are people who are involved with the community not just a voice on TV or the radio talk back shows. They will attend community areas where ever or whenever required and time is available
No difference	· Any change for the better is okay by me	· I believe panel and/or committee are one of the same they should produce the same or similar results
Equity between communities in the city	· Equitable representation with Harbour & Wainuiomata wards	· To create equity and a better understanding of community representation in the City the 3 historic Community Boards should be replaced by Panels.
Proposal not sufficiently developed	· I support only part of the proposal. I support the functions of the new panels and the Council taking back the decision making that the old committees had. I do not support there only being two panels, as I think this will be too wide an area for the panels to represent · This looks like a good way of getting community input into the processes. I see some risks that need to be managed though · I presume the panels are for the wards that do not have Elected Boards. I am not sure if the Election of Community Boards is a problem in these two areas that these unelected committees are being set up. It seems fair that all wards have an ear to the Community that 2 councillor can't carry out by themselves. Without working in the system I am not too sure of my opinions · I am really not sure. Community Panels will consist of 7 members. How many people will be on the Community committees and how many panels and committees will there be? I had to complete this survey to ask these questions! I'd like to do the survey with more information	· I think it is half baked so far. Libraries and 'hubs' are not sufficient to disseminate information. What about the Hutt News? · There is no clear info on where all the other decision making will be transferred. Although I support the idea in principal there is not enough overall info supplied to make an informed decision; therefore, leave well enough alone · Am uncomfortable with transfer of local decision-making power to Council, where issues/decisions may tend to languish. Could be convinced otherwise if more of a case was made for the change. · There has been no argument made for why a change is necessary · What's the rationale behind the proposal? Present system not working; too many people; why change? I notice in the present community committee description of what they do, the suburbs are not named. Yet in the proposal they are. This makes me wonder if there is a bit of bias operating. Why are suburb/area of Petone and Eastbourne not mentioned? Is this because these areas have wards? If wards for two, why not wards for all areas and drop community committees? If Community Committees and wards are the eyes and ears of the council; I.e. Where I as a citizen am able to communicate my ideas etc for my suburb/community (as though I am communicating to the whole city through the council) then give them equal status (not according to size) and make it known i.e. promote them. Core values are the government/vehicle that either enables or disables each citizen/community/suburb being part of achieving the vision council has for · The city/collective of all citizens. Vision is not a value. Less community engagement is not a value. Community engagement is the vehicle by which the vision is achieved. Why does the council propose to establish only two committees? There should be strategic wards or community committees which have governance of certain areas (with a councillor) who act on behalf of the council who is the governor of the whole

54 04 May 2017

Community Services Committee

07 April 2017

File: (17/639)

Report no: CSC2017/2/125

Community Development Fund Recommended Allocations 2016/2017

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is for the Committee to agree to the recommended allocations for the Community Development Fund 2016/2017.

Recommendation

That the Committee agrees to the recommended allocations for the Community Development Fund 2016/2017, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. Council approved $176,000 budgeted in the Annual Plan for the Community Development Fund Scheme 2016/2017.

3. A total of $33,000 has been set aside for Regional Grants as follows; NZ Festival of the Arts $9,000, Life Flight Trust $11,000, Wellington Free Ambulance $9,000 and Vector Orchestra $4,000. A total of $40,000 was approved for Sportsville operational funding.

4. There is $103,000 available for allocation and this has been fully allocated.

5. The outcomes sought are:

· enhanced quality of life and greater community participation/ connections;

· young people and their families develop to their full potential through such measures as parental education programmes and youth development initiatives; and

· effective partnerships are in place with others to ensure the most efficient use of the resources and prevent duplication of services.

Discussion

6. Forty three applications were received requesting a total of $335,800. Applications were assessed through the Officer Assessment Review Panel.

7. Eighteen applications were deemed to be of a lower priority and they will be offered advice on applying to other funding schemes internally and external to Council’s funding.

8. Twenty five applications have been recommended for funding which meet the criteria of the fund and align more closely with Council priorities.

Consultation

9. The scheme was advertised on Council’s website, Council libraries and also included in emails to previous recipients of the fund.

10. Officers met with a number of different community groups offering assistance with Council’s online grants management system.

Legal Considerations

11. Funds must be used only for the purpose for which they were sought and/or approved.

12. Funds must be used within 10 months of the recipient being notified of their successful application.

13. The recipients are required to inform Council immediately if any difficulties arise which may compromise the service or project.

14. A complaint must be laid with the Police if any funds received under this scheme are stolen or misappropriated. Council must be notified of all such complaints to the Police.

15. The recipient must allow an audit on the use of Council’s funds should Council wish to undertake such an audit.

16. The recipient must recognise the support of Council in appropriate publicity material, annual reports and similar publications.

17. The recipients must provide an accountability report outlining the benefits to the community and copies of receipts of expenditure no later than ten months after the funds have been uplifted.

18. The recipients will be required to attend a community meeting where they will present to the community on their outcomes.

Financial Considerations

19. Allocations can only be made for amounts between $1,000 and $10,000 for the Community Development Fund.

Other Considerations

20. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. The objective of the fund is for non-profit groups providing social services to the community which is meeting the needs of the community. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it has already the funds available through the annual plan process.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1 - Community Development Fund Recommendations	57

Author: Debbie Hunter

Community Advisor Funding and Community Contracts

Reviewed By: Melanie Laban

Community Projects and Relationship Manager

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager Community Services

Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Community Development Fund Recommendations

APPENDIX 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND 2016-2017 – Recommended Allocations

No.	Organization	Purpose	Request	Recommend
1	Porirua Living Without Violence	Office rental in Lower Hutt	10,000	4,000
2	Earthlink Incorporated	Office rental in Lower Hutt	10,000	4,000
3	English Language Partners	Administrator salaries	5,000	2,000
4	Titiro Whakamua	Youth Worker salaries	10,000	3,000
5	Hutt Union & Community Health Services Inc	Police Safety Order Accommodation and Specialist Service Provision	10,000	10,000
6	The Road Forward Trust	Operational costs + volunteer expenses	9,000	2,000
7	Age Concern Wellington Inc	Volunteer Visitor Service Salaries	6,000	3,000
8	Supergrans Charitable Trust	Operational costs + Family Empowerment Project Salaries	10,000	2,000
9	Naenae Youth Charitable Trust	Operational costs + Scholarships	10,000	3,000
10	Wharekai Pepe Trust	Support and Consultant salaries	10,000	3,000
11	Hutt Valley Youth Health Trust	Vibe Youth Hub Naenae salaries	10,000	7,000
12	Lower Hutt Community Foodbank Inc	Support Services salaries	5,000	3,000
13	Te Awa Kairangi Access Trust	Salaries - Education Village pilot	3,000	3,000
14	Birthright Hutt Valley Trust	Family Support/Youth Worker salaries	10,000	5,000
15	Victoria University of Wellington Foundation	Tuhono I te Ao – Connecting the Worlds, salaries	10,000	5,000
16	NZ Council of Victim Support Groups	Service Co-ordinator Salaries	3,365	3,000
17	Ignite Sport Trust	Salaries – School support services	10,000	5,000
18	Kaibosh	Salaries	8,000	5,000
19	Te Huinga O Te Whanau (Peoples Project) Inc	Community Empowerment Project – Volunteer and operational costs	10,000	10,000
20	Anglican Social Services (Hutt Valley) Trust Board (The Family Centre)	Maori Family Therapist salaries	7,600	3,000
21	Thumbs Up Charitable Trust	Operational costs	10,000	4,000
22	Greenstone Doors Charitable Trust	Salary costs	10,000	2,000
23	Whanau Ora Trust	Operational costs – venue	10,000	3,000
24	Dress for Success Wgtn Inc	Lower Hutt Hub rental	10,000	8,000
25	Senior Net Hutt City Inc	Operational costs	2,913	1,000
			TOTAL	$103,000

Applications that are recommended to be declined because they were Lower Priority

26	The Arthritis Foundation of NZ	27	Youth Development Trust Wellington
28	Kidz Need Dadz Wellington	29	Wellington City Mission
30	Hearth Trust	31	Parent to Parent Wellington
32	Wellington SPCA Inc	33	Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind
34	Shakti Ethnic Women’s Support Group Wgtn	35	Transition Towns Lower Hutt
36	New Zealand Centre for Gifted Education Ltd	37	The Parenting Place
38	Male Survivors of Sexual Abust Trust Wgtn	39	Parkinsonism Society Wgtn Inc
40	Mituakiri	41	The Community Unity Project Aotearoa
42	Women of Worth Charitable Trust	43	Volunteer Hutt

59 04 May 2017

Community Services Committee

17 March 2017

File: (17/512)

Report no: CSC2017/2/127

General Manager's Report

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with a general update from the Community Services Group.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee notes the updates contained in the report.

Background

2. The Chair of the Community Services Committee and General Manager Community Services agreed that a report from Community Services should be provided at each meeting.

Discussion

3. An update is provided below. Officers request Committee members provide feedback on the sort of information they would most like included in these updates.

Overall Comments from General Manager

4. The Community Services Group is making strong progress towards its three high level objectives:

Ø Providing the very best core community services

Ø Developing world-class community facilities

Ø Improving the lives and futures for those living in our highest deprivation communities – especially the young.

5. As Community Services continues to evolve to meet the needs and aspirations of our communities, in particular with the growth of community hubs as well as continuing to work to have community development integrated in all aspects of our work, the group’s structure has had to undergo some changes.

6. In late 2016 the Group was reorganised, seeing the development of a new division – Community Hubs. The new division is co-led by Mike Mercer and Mel Laban.

7. The Community Hubs Division includes the Walter Nash Centre, Stokes Valley Community Hub and Wainui Community Hub. As further hubs are developed this division will grow accordingly. The change had the most significant impact on the Libraries division, whereby Libraries staff have been integrated within the new Community Hub division. As with Leisure Active and Museum services the core Libraries Division will provide the expertise, creativity and innovation across all the Hubs.

8. As Community Services are doing more and facilities open longer, the reorganisation has also focused on efficiencies.

9. In addition to the changes outlined above the Group is also increasingly exploring opportunities for new partnerships as well as externally funded contracts that are aligned to Council’s vision and priorities eg Healthy Families.

10. As a result of these changes the current Activity structure is less relevant and less transparent. Making meaningful comparisons of income and expenditure trends between accounting periods is difficult. The group proposes to collapse all the activities into one new Activity – Integrated Community Services. Below this consolidated Activity the group proposes to report at a more detailed level the relevant financial (net cost) and non-financial information, i.e. report separately on Museums, Pools, Recreation Programmes, Libraries (stand-alone), Community Hubs, City Safety, Community Funding, significant contracts like Healthy Families. The alternative to above would be to create more Activities which while possible will also create greater levels of administrative compliance work and effort e.g. overhead allocations.

Museums

Events

11. A successful Neighbours Day event was held at Petone Settlers Museum in late March. A steady stream of visitors came to the museum, including regular visitors, new Petone residents, and long-term residents who have not visited in many years. New exhibitions have opened at The Dowse; Dark Objects (our annual curatorial intern exhibition), Richard Stratton: Living History (new work by a Wellington potter) and Emma Fitts: From Pressure to Vibration (new works by Emma Fitts mixed with textile works from our collection). A new group show of younger artists looking at issues of climate change opens to the public on 14 April. We are currently developing an exhibition of drawings from the collection, and an exhibition around te reo Māori for Matariki / Māori Language Week. In Community Art activities, the Common Ground festival was successfully delivered in February/March in sites across the Hutt valley involving dozens of artists & collaborators and hundreds of participants and school children.

Museum Updates

12. After 9 years with the Museums team our Education Manager Jen Boland (who was seconded as Community Curator for the 2016/17 FY) has left HCC for a new role as director of the Katherine Mansfield Trust. We are thrilled to see Jen take on this exciting new challenge but replacing her will be difficult as she had a rare combination of skills and deep local knowledge. We will be recruiting for the Community Curator role shortly, and reviewing our needs in the Education team.

13. Community Arts Advisor Pippa Sanderson has been busy preparing a briefing for the first meeting of the Arts & Culture Subcommittee and assisting with the recruitment of community representatives for the committee.

14. Construction work has begun on the refit of the café space at The Dowse. Bellbird is scheduled to open in early June. A pop-up café in The Dowse has been getting positive feedback and indicates a strong working relationship with the Museums team.

15. The heavy rain over 5/6 April led to a series of new leaks in The Dowse’s building, most worryingly in one of the galleries on the Laings Road side of the building. Aquaheat were extremely responsive on the day the leaks were discovered, however the leak was in an area of the roof that has not yet repaired and indicates the urgency of this issue for us.

Trends

16. Preliminary results are in from the annual sector survey of New Zealand museums. These show healthy trends in visitation and community engagement across the motu, but widespread concerns around succession planning and leadership development. As a member of the Museums Aotearoa Board, Museums director Courtney Johnston is part of a working group led by Te Papa that is reviewing sector development needs. In other national news, Auckland Council is commissioning an independent review of its regional cultural facilities (including MOTAT, Auckland Museum, Stardome, the Maritime Museum and Auckland Art Gallery) due to concerns around Council’s level of oversight and ability to influence regional collaboration. This is a very different situation to HCC, where our museums are units of Council, and also the Wellington region in general, where collaboration between cultural organisations is trending upwards.

Leisure Active

17. The past three months has seen significant change within the Leisure Active Team. Staff movements have included:

· The appointment of Lauren Hudson to the position of Aquatic Facilities Manager responsible for operational management across all pool sites.

· The appointment of Mark Curr to the position of Recreation and Sport Programmes Manager to replace Mike Mercer who now manages the Community Hubs division.

· The appointment of Stephen Keatley to the position of Huia Pool & Fitness Centre Manager.

18. On a negative note the poor weather experienced throughout summer and autumn has significantly affected attendance numbers and revenue across all of our swimming pools. This, coupled with the disruption caused by construction work at Huia Pool, means that swimming pools will be reporting an operational variance for the year.

19. Work continues on the expansion of Huia Pool to include a new hydrotherapy pool, Learn to Swim pool and fitness gym. The new development is on track to open in July this year.

20. The Summer recreational events season is now nearing completion with attendances to most activities on par or greater than previous years. Activities have included: Bike the Trail, Weetbix Tri, Avalon Park Expo, Tri-ability Tri, Bike Week, PAWS Walks, Kev the Kiwi Walks, Steady as you Go, Operation Park Fit and Yoga Flavours.

21. Highlights of the programme include:

· The Broga event (Yoga for Bro’s) held at the end of February as part of our Yoga Flavours programme. This event targeted men who may be inactive or overweight and focuses on wellness and mindfulness. The event had very positive feedback attracting 63 participants and a very large response on Facebook with a reach of nearly 24k.

· The Weetbix tri attracted 1,350 participants to a mid week event which well exceeded the expectation of the sponsors sanitarium. More importantly for our team the pre-event training programme supplied bikes, bike servicing and cycling lessons to 285 young people across the North East schools cluster allowing more children from this area to compete.

22. The North Pathways Project, a three party partnership project comprising a cluster of schools centred around Avalon Intermediate, Hutt City Council and Sport New Zealand, is entering its third year of operation. The three core objectives of the project are to increase students’ engagement with their schools, improve academic achievement levels of students and improve the perception of Avalon Intermediate School in the wider community. Primarily the project centres on developing a new way of learning for students using sport and recreation as a theme in an integrated curriculum.

23. The interim evaluation report showed the great progress that has been made with:

· 12% increase in students across the school either at or exceeding national standards

· 32% increase in students in the specialised sports class either at or exceeding national standards

· 90% satisfaction rating of the school by parents

· 30% roll growth

· Engagements of students ranking 20% higher when compared to other schools.

24. The Healthy Families Initiative led by Hutt City Council continues to gain momentum and community support. The project centres on making systems changes that support healthy living within the places and environments that we spend our time. Activities supported by the Healthy Families team over the past two months include:

· Hutt Real Food Challenge which resulted in seven locally driven initiatives going through to our support series.

· Supporting the successful Te Ra o te Raukura festival being water-only.

· Hosting Dave Wood from Toi Te Ora Public Health Service to deliver the 2-day WorkWell advisor training to local workplace champions including from Hutt City Council, Upper Hutt City Council, WelTec, Sport Wellington and Kokiri Marae - Takiri Mai te Ata Regional Stop Smoking Service.

· Commitment by Hutt City Council to install seven new Meet PAT water fountains across our communities including in Naenae, Taita, Stokes Valley, Wainuiomata and Eastbourne.

· Hutt Valley District Health Board’s commitment to signing up to the WorkWell programme - making them the first organisation in the Wellington region.

· Hosted a HRINZ Workplace Wellbeing Special Interest Group breakfast event on the theme of ‘Get Moving in February’ where a variety of presentations were provided to workplaces on programmes and initiatives that are available to support them to get their employees more active.

· The uptake from sports codes and organisations of becoming pro water and water only and the willingness to substitute unhealthy player of the day rewards to healthier alternatives like free pool passes for Hutt City Council pools. Our successful player of the day certificates are now being used to engage Upper Hutt City Council, Wellington City Council and Porirua City Council to also get behind sports codes and organisations and offer free pool passes as player of the day rewards.

Libraries

Libraries Clubhouses

25. Our clubhouse programmes at Naenae and Taita have moved from strength to strength in the last year.

26. Projects our members have worked on include graphic design, 3D design and modelling, film editing, photography, app development, robotics, electronics, coding, and music composition.

27. Some of our key achievements in 2016 include:

· Four Clubhouse members attended the Clubhouse Network Teen Summit in Boston in July. As well as taking part in youth leadership workshops, attendees stayed on campus at a Boston University, worked on collaborative high-tech projects with youth from other Clubhouses around the world, and visited places like MIT and Google.

· Two members from Naenae Clubhouse won a $1000 prize in the New Zealand Vegetarian Society 2016 short film competition.

· One member from Taita Clubhouse won the Hutt City Youth Award for Entrepreneurship. After attending Teen Summit he established his own stock photography and design business.

· Both Clubhouses entered short films in the HP 48 Hour film competition. Naenae Clubhouse’s entry won the best original song category in the Wellington regional competition

28. Clubhouse is a free after school programme, for young people aged 10-18 years, to explore and learn new creative technology skills.

29. We have 380 youth actively involved in the programme. 41% of Clubhouse members are girls, 40% of Clubhouse members are teens (aged 13-18 years).

30. In a 2015/16 survey Hutt City Clubhouse members gave the following responses:

· 97% said they cared more about doing well in school because of Clubhouse

· 82% said Clubhouse helps them to make better life choices (with family, friends, and at school)

· 63% said they wanted to study some aspect of STEMM in the future because of Clubhouse

31. Our Hutt City Clubhouses are licensed to the Clubhouse Network - an international community of over 90 Clubhouses, located in 19 countries, providing youth with access to resources, skills, and experiences to help them succeed in their careers, and contribute to their communities. For more information about the Clubhouse Network see http://www.computerclubhouse.org/

Issues and risks

· Antisocial behaviour from youth

· Building issues

Community Hubs

32. The Stokes Valley Hub capital project continues to remain on track with an estimated public opening of end of October. Walter Nash and Wainuiomata continue to deliver exciting community partnership programmes such as the central government funded youth designed “Journeys” programme at Walter Nash Centre which builds leadership, resilience and aims to keep young people engaged in our community. The Walter Nash Centre has just reached a milestone of having 1 million customers through the door since opening.

33. The new division is still in the process of developing its identity and business plan moving forward. The biggest opportunities for us are in the integration of a range of Council services within a single hub facility, and encouragement of community led and delivered activities.

34. The biggest risk factors are staffing levels/budget and safety. Due to the nature of our activities we expose our staff to some risks. Each site has undertaken/will undertake a health and safety improvements planning process to determine any changes that need to be made. This will be conducted annually. Budgets continue to remain a constant pressure and this has a direct impact on our service delivery.

Community Partnerships & Relationships

35. Strengthening our partnerships with community, central government and the corporate sector to improve lives, continues to be a focus for the team. Goodtime Music and Kiwibank now provide scholarships to kids in the North East which are focussed on music tuition and swimming lessons; Ministry of Social Development has enabled a third Akoranga (Learning) programme to take place which is focused in Naenae with approximately 50 kids each day; Youth Inspire has expanded its service into Naenae and Kokiri Marae continues to provide a detached youth service across the city. Council’s Youth Council has had its first workshop as a new group, which has representatives from across the city. Our focus is on building this team, so they are confident in their role and with their responsibilities, so they can become strong advocates for youth at the Council table. They are also currently working on their annual plan submission.

36. Family violence continues to be an issue across our city. The Police Safety Order (PSO) house working group has set its strategic direction towards the implementation of an operational facility. Individual group members have been tasked with formulating a legal entity/ structure, sourcing funding, finding a suitable property, community engagement, and staffing the facility. All areas progressing well. The first community meeting to develop a group of trained anti-family violence champions for Wainuiomata occurred. Vetting and training of those that offered their service is underway.

37. Hutt City Council CCTV continues to be a valuable tool for Police and has been crucial in solving some recent high profile crimes. Unfortunately Stokes Valley cameras are operating at 50% efficiency until the new hub is able to accept the local cameras into the HCC fibre network again. Safe City Ambassadors continue to provide excellent service to the public and have been issued additional equipment due to the growing levels of risks they are encountering. Local community patrols continue to work well despite losing the Taita patrol. Neighbouring patrols cover the Taita area until a new group can be formed.

Community Services Capital Projects

Fraser Park Sportsville Stage 2 – Multipurpose Sports Building

38. The CFT has now raised a total of $1.64m of its $3.2m target to complete Stage 2. Because of this progress the CFT awarded a conditional contract for the construction of the project to Armstrong Downes of Lower Hutt in November of 2016. The contract was conditional upon the CFT raising the balance of the required funds. Armstrong Downes and CFT are now working together to drive cost out of the building project to enable a start date of June 2017, subject to Council approval.

39. The CFT is also continuing with a fundraising campaign to raise the balance. An experienced fundraiser has been appointed along with additional administrative staff to assist him. The CFT is presenting to Council in May.

Walter Mildenhall Park Redevelopment

40. The main clubrooms, the three external greens, the tennis and petanque courts, landscaping, fencing and lighting are now complete and ready for fit out by the clubs. The built space is attractive, sunny and generously proportioned and represents a huge step up on the amenities of both the legacy club facilities.

41. The Naenae Bowling Club is now project managing the movement of the combined bowls clubs, petanque club and the RSA into the new facility.

42. Progress on the adjacent covered internal green has been slower than expected because of the 7.8 earthquake, the highly changeable weather over the summer, and four roof beams being built out of agreed construction tolerances. The out of tolerance beams have now been corrected and are being reinstalled on the site. Once these are in place the artificial turf will be installed under the completed roof.

43. Hawkins Construction regrets the delay and will meet all costs involved in putting right the construction fault. Fortunately the design of the facility will allow club members to use the new club rooms and community facilities including the external greens and tennis courts, while construction work continues on the adjacent undercover bowling green.

44. Lastly, work on the driveway in from Vogel Street and the associated parking courtyard will be completed as soon as the construction activity associated with the indoor green is completed. This is expected to be by late July. Access to the site and approximately 50 car parks will however be available from Treadwell Street by the end of April.

Huia Pool Development

45. The project continues to progress and the building is almost enclosed. You can really start to see how the facility will finally look. Set out below are some of the major milestones that have been completed since the last update:

· The roof, cladding and 85% of the windows in the pool halls and gym have been completed

· The pool has been completed and is ready for the pool floor to be poured

· All blockwork for the changing room, foyer and plant areas have been completed

· All concrete around the poolside has been laid

· The ventilation plant has been put in to position

· Pre-wiring and plumbing for the building has started.

46. The project is currently on track for completion in late July 2017 and the budget is currently tracking a positive forecast variance.

Stokes Valley Community Hub

47. Contractors are on time with structural works due to be completed in May.

48. As noted, the contingency budget has been spent on asbestos removal and soft spots in ground. Only a small amount of budget risk still remains in the project as this is a design–build contract.

49. The temporary library continues to operate. In addition, Cheryl Murray (Community Facilitator – Projects) is based out of a container located in Scott Court two days a week as an initial point of contact for community. She will be hosting a range of other HCC officers in the container to provide outreach services and advice.

50. A series of community activities have been developed and delivered by the Libraries, Leisure Active and Community Partnerships and Relationships teams. Approximately 12 programmes and events will have taken place by the time the hub opens. In addition, several arts projects are in progress which will result in permanent installations at the new hub. These have been designed to reflect local culture and history.

51. Overall the project is tracking on time and on budget at this stage.

Community Services Significant Contracts: Healthy Families

Smokefree Lower Hutt

52. Healthy Families Lower Hutt has joined the Takiri Mai te Ata Regional Stop Smoking steering group to strengthen collective efforts.

53. We have commenced engagement in Wainuiomata regarding exploring designating areas of town centres smokefree. This has included connecting with Wainuiomata Ward Councillors, stakeholders and community champions. We presented to the Wainuiomata Community Board at its April meeting to get feedback and endorsement of a proposed engagement process.

54. Cheryl Murray is leading engagement regarding designating areas of town centres smokefree in Stokes Valley.

55. Parks and Gardens have installed metal smokefree signs at parks, playgrounds and beaches in Eastbourne. Wainuiomata and the North East will be the next areas to having signs installed.

56. Libraries have been actively promoting smokefree areas.

Hutt Real Food Challenge

57. On 4 April we held a successful Hutt Real Food Challenge public showcase where our six local teams presented their initiatives and their next steps to improve our local food system. Many of these initiatives will be seeking Council support going forward.

Go the H2O (water initiative)

58. We are working with Leisure Active and other Councils and stakeholders to provide player of the day certificates which offer free pool entry as a healthy alternative to fast food sponsored certificates. This has been hugely successful with Wellington City Council and Upper Hutt City Council now also coming on board.

59. We now have two portable hydration stations within Council for use by the community and organisations at their events and sporting fixtures to encourage water as the drink of choice.

60. We are working with schools, workplaces and sporting organisations to support them to become pro water or water only settings.

Local Alcohol Plan

61. We are working alongside Regional Public Health to encourage the community to have their say on Hutt City’s Local Alcohol Policy.

Other Considerations

62. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government Act.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Matt Reid

General Manager Community Services

Approved By: Tony Stallinger

Chief Executive

[1] The randomly selected sample was recruited by Public Voice from the community and is statistically representative of Hutt City’s population in terms of age, gender and ethnicity.

[2] The self-selected sample are people who have contacted Council and asked to be involved in engagement, consultation and surveys

Cr L Bridson	Cr S Edwards
Cr M Lulich	Cr G McDonald
Cr C Milne	Cr L Sutton
Mayor W R Wallace (Ex Officio)

Determine and monitor: