Agenda of Community Development Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Community Development Committee MEETING

13 March 2017

Order of Business

(NOTE: The commencement time for this meeting coincides with the commencement time for the Economic Development meeting. The format for the meeting will be that the Community Development Committee meeting will open, take apologies and adjourn immediately to allow the Economic Development Committee to consider its business. At the conclusion of the Economic Development meeting the Community Development Committee meeting will resume to consider its business.)

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE: If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

4. Deputation - Environment Network Manawatu Page 7

5. Deputation - Palmerston North Methodist Goodwill Ltd Page 9

6. Deputation - Palmerston North Community Services Council Page 11

7. Deputation - Future Leaders Page 13

8. Deputation - Volunteer Resource Centre Page 25

9. Confirmation of Minutes Page 27

“That the minutes of the Community Development Committee meeting of 12 December 2016 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

10. Class 4 Gambling Venues Policy and Racing Board Venue Policy Reviews - Deliberations on Submissions Page 39

Memorandum, dated 16 February 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

11. Begging in the CBD Page 55

Report, dated 3 March 2017 from the Manager - Community Engagement, Ian Littleworth.

12. Conference Opportunity - NZPI Conference April 2017. Page 97

Memorandum, dated 6 March 2017 from the Committee Administrator, Rachel Corser.

13. Committe Work Schedule - March 2017 Page 103

Work Schedule dated March 2017

14. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

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:

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

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 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 as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

Chief Executive (Paddy Clifford), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), General Manager, City Enterprises (Ray McIndoe), General Manager, City Future (Sheryl Bryant), General Manager, City Networks (Ray Swadel), General Manager, Customer Services (Peter Eathorne), General Manager, Libraries and Community Services (Debbie Duncan), Human Resources Manager (Wayne Wilson) and Strategic Communications Manager (Mark Torley) because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with advice on matters both from an organisation-wide context (being members of the Council’s Management Team) and also from their specific role within the Council.

Legal Counsel (John Annabell), because of his knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with legal and procedural advice.

Governance and Support Team Leader (Kyle Whitfield) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell and Rachel Corser), because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of the meeting.

< add officers who are authors of reports or their substitutes > because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

<add third parties, e.g. authors of third party reports being considered>, because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Community Development Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 12 December 2016, commencing at 9.02am

Members

Present:

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (Council Business) and Councillors Susan Baty (early departure, on Council Business), Duncan McCann (for lateness) and Tangi Utikere (early departure, on Council Business).

Councillor Duncan McCann entered the meeting at 9.18am during consideration of clause 54. He left the meeting again at the adjournment at 12.30pm. He was not present for clauses 52 and 53 and 59 to 64 inclusive.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta entered the meeting at 9.20am during consideration of clause 54. She was not present for clauses 52 and 53 inclusive.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at the adjournment at 10.39am. He entered the meeting again at 3.56pm during consideration of clause 60. He was not present for clauses 57 to 60 inclusive.

Councillor Susan Baty left the meeting at the adjournment at 11.04am. She entered the meeting again when it resumed at 3.40pm. She was not present for clause 58.

52-16

Apologies

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 52.1 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford, and Tangi Utikere.

53-16

Public Participation at Meetings

Memorandum, dated 10 November 2016 from the Committee Administrator, Penny Odell.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Community Development Committee set aside a public comment section of not more than 30 minutes at the commencement of each ordinary meeting of the Committee to provide members of the community the opportunity to comment.

Clause 53.1 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

54-16	Public Comment
	Public comment was received from: - Sally Babbich regarding social housing. Councillor Duncan McCann entered the meeting at 9.18am - Kevin White regarding social housing and targeted rates on low value rental accommodation. Councillor Leonie Hapeta entered the meeting at 9.20am - Kevin O’Reilly regarding social housing - Daniel Ryland regarding social housing - Darren Birch from Homes for People regarding social and affordable housing.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Committee receive the public comment for information.
	Clause 54.1 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

55-16

Draft Gambling Venue Policies 2016

The following persons appeared before the Committee and made oral statements in support of their submission and replied to questions from elected members, the additional points being:

New Zealand Racing Board (2)

Representing New Zealand Racing Board, Mr Jarrod True presented a PowerPoint Presentation on the submission and made no additional comments.

Manu Albert (8)

Ms Manu Albert spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

- Gambling had started off as fun, but then it became addictive and caused the loss of friends and family.

- Unlike addiction to alcohol, where you can see the physical signs ie the smell etc, with gambling you cannot see the signs.

Margaret Ryniker (10)

Ms Margaret Ryniker spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

- By imposing a sinking lid policy it shows that Council are supporting those with a gambling addiction.

- Each individual was different. If pokie machines were taken away, some would turn to internet gambling, whilst others may stop. Some may follow a particular machine and if they cant find it will stop gambling.

Problem Gambling Foundation (13)

Representing Problem Gambling Foundation, Ms Therese Grevatt spoke to the submission and made the following additional comments:

- Auckland Council has a strong sinking lid policy that also has a no relocation clause attached to it.

- The foundation do not get a lot of referrals from the gaming venues and had received reports of some venues failing their host responsibilities.

NZ Community Trust (14)

Representing NZ Community Trust, Ms Tanya Piejus presented a PowerPoint Presentation on the submission and made the following additional comments:

- 18 Councils had reviewed their policies, with 17 of them putting in relocation policies, with none having time restrictions such as the Palmerston North proposal.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Community Development Committee receive the oral and written submissions to the Draft Gambling Venue Policies 2016.

Clause 55.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

56-16

Gambling Policies - Summary of Submissions

Memorandum, dated 3 November 2016 from the Policy Analyst, Charlotte Greig.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the summary of submissions to the draft New Zealand Racing Board Venue Policy and the draft Gambling Venue Policy (“the draft Gambling Venue Policies”) be received.

Clause 56.1 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Abstained:

Councillor Tangi Utikere.

Councillor Adrian Broad declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from discussion and voting on clause 56.1 above.

Councillor Lew Findlay QSM declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from discussion and voting on clause 56.1 above.

The meeting adjourned at 10.39am

The meeting resumed again at 10.44am

When the meeting resumed The Mayor (Grant Smith) was not present.

57-16

Deputation - Palmerston North Community Services Council

Representing Palmerston North Community Services Council Fraser Greig and Michelle Thompson made a deputation presenting the Social Wellbeing Forum report. The forum was held on 13 May 2016 and had 139 members of the community in attendance.

Outcomes from the forum included:

- A Massey 3^rd year Social Work Student had been engaged to work on “Community Manawatu” and a draft report had been completed. A Steering Group had also been established and two meetings had been held so far.

- Timebanking had also been identified at the forum and a Steering Group had been set-up and were currently in the process of seeking volunteers.

- To get better outcomes, it was suggested that the breakout session discussion topics be aligned with Councillor portfolios.

- Awareness that the Social Strategy was being reviewed and noted that to create and or get outcomes the Community Services Council would need to be funded and structured as a Community Development agency.

- For future forums consideration could be given to prior research being undertaken to define relevant local issues that would determine those issues to be considered at the forum, thus reducing a lot of time discussing this on the day.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Community Development Committee receive the deputation for information.

Clause 57.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

The meeting adjourned at 11.04am

The meeting resumed again at 11.21am

When the meeting resumed Councillor Susan Baty was not present

58-16

Library of the Future and Refurbishment Project - Update

Memorandum, dated 30 November 2016 from the General Manager - Libraries and Community Services, Debbie Duncan and the General Manager - City Networks, Ray Swadel.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the update on the Library of the Future and Refurbishment Project be received.

Clause 58.1 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

59-16

Begging in the CBD - Update

Memorandum, dated 25 November 2016 from the Manager - Community Engagement, Ian Littleworth.

Sharon Saxton, Christina Hemmingsen and Maiava Malifa from MASH Trust provided an update on the begging trial.

The meeting adjourned at 12.30pm

The meeting resumed again at 3.40pm

When the meeting resumed The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Duncan McCann were not present and Councillor Susan Baty was present.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the report dated 25 November 2016, entitled “Begging in the CBD – Update” be received.

Clause 59.1 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

60-16	Safety Advisory Board - Request for formal endorsement Memorandum, dated 27 November 2016 from the General Manager - Libraries and Community Services, Debbie Duncan. The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 3.56pm
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the report dated 27 November 2016, “Safety Advisory Board – Request for Formal Endorsement” be received. 2. That Council formally endorse the Safety Advisory Board and its continued focus on the retention of the Palmerston North International Safe Communities Safe City status.
	Clauses 60.1 and 60.2 above were carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	3. That Council agree that the Safety Advisory Board will be led by Palmerston North City Council and chaired by either the Mayor, or his nominated representative if so desired by the Safety Advisory Board.
	Clause 60.3 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Councillor Vaughan Dennison declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from discussion and voting on clause 60.3 above.

61-16

Appointment of Councillor to the Safety Advisory Board

Memorandum, dated 28 November 2016 from the Governance & Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council appoint the Portfolio holder for Safe City as the Council Representative on the Safety Advisory Board.

Clause 61.1 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Councillor Vaughan Dennison declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from discussion and voting on clause 61.1 above.

62-16	Notice of Motion - Social Housing Strategy and Social Housing Strategy - Supplementary information Memorandum, dated 30 November 2016 from the General Manager - Libraries and Community Services, Debbie Duncan.
	Moved Susan Baty, seconded Lorna Johnson. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the report, dated 22 October 2015 and entitled “Social Housing Strategy Options for Delivery”, by Julie Macdonald be lifted off the table.
	Clause 62.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Susan Baty, seconded Lorna Johnson. 2. That the Social Housing Strategy be reviewed to: a. Set rents up to market value dependent on tenants ability to pay; b. Apply changes to rentals to new tenants only; c. Benchmark to the government standard for rental housing as described in the Residential Tenancies Act, instead of the Otago Medical School Warrant of Fitness Programme; d. Undertake the phasing out of bedsits over a longer time period to enable priority to be placed on increasing new housing;
	e. Deliver social housing in a financially sustainable manner with a view to achieving cost neutrality.
	Clause 62.2.e above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillor Lew Findlay QSM.
	3. That the Chief Executive be instructed to report on the implications of the proposed new direction for Social Housing as directed by the Council before the Strategy is re-drafted by June 2017. 4. That the Chief Executive be instructed to investigate a mixed-model of delivery that retains social housing under Council control together with partnerships with other agencies/investors to increase Council’s social housing stock, and report back to Council as a matter of urgency.
	Clause 62.2 (a to d inclusive), 62.3 and 62.4 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Grant Smith. 5. That Council approve the expenditure of $22,000 to complete an initial scoping exercise to progress a mixed model for Delivery of Social Housing.
	Clause 62.5 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

63-16

Notice of Motion - Elected Member Community Engagement Calendar

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Chief Executive be instructed to develop an elected member community engagement calendar to ensure that the ‘Lets Talk’ annual KPI’s are met.

Clause 63.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

64-16

Committee Work Schedule

Committee Work Schedule, dated December 2016.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEEE RESOLVED

1. That the Community Development Committee receive its Work Schedule dated December 2016.

Clause 64.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

The meeting finished at 4.35pm

Confirmed 13^th March 2017

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 March 2017

TITLE: Class 4 Gambling Venues Policy and Racing Board Venue Policy Reviews - Deliberations on Submissions

DATE: 16 February 2017

AUTHOR/S: Peter Ridge, Policy Analyst, City Future

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That the Council adopts the Palmerston North Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy 2017, as shown in Appendix 1 to this report, to come into effect on 28 March 2017, replacing the Palmerston North Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy 2012 on the same date.

2. That the Council adopts the Palmerston North Racing Board Venue Policy 2017, as shown in Appendix 2 to this report, to come into effect on 28 March 2017, replacing the Palmerston North Racing Board Venue Policy 2012 on the same date.

3. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Community Development Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Palmerston North Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy 2017 and Racing Board Venue Policy 2017 prior to publication.

1. ISSUE

The Council has completed the consultation process on the draft Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy and the Racing Board Venue Policy. This memorandum discusses the submissions received and provides advice to the Committee on the issues raised by those submissions. Officers are recommending that the changes to the two policies that were consulted on are adopted without any further changes.

2. BACKGROUND

The Council undertook public consultation on the draft Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy and draft Racing Board Venue Policy, with written submissions being received between 3 September and 7 October. Hearings for oral submissions were held on 12 December 2016. The Council received 14 written submissions, and heard five oral submissions.

3. Issues analysis

The proposal for consultation included the following suggested changes:

· Reducing the cap on gaming machine numbers to 347.

· Removing the industrial zone as a permitted zone where gaming machine venues could be located.

· Amending the relocation clause to permit relocation of existing venues once every 36 months.

Officers are recommending that these changes are adopted without any further change.

The following section discusses the points raised by submitters for each of these suggested changes.

Reducing the cap on gaming machine numbers to 347

Submitters were generally in favour of reducing the cap on gaming machine numbers – only two submitters were opposed to a reduction. However, several submitters favoured an alternative restriction – a sinking lid. A sinking lid policy effectively permits no new gaming venues, and as existing venues close the cap or “lid” automatically sinks to the lower number.

The arguments against reducing the cap on gaming machine numbers focussed on statements that restricting gaming machine numbers does not reduce problem gambling, but does reduce local community funding opportunities, or may encourage people to use other forms of gambling. It was also argued that restricting gaming machine numbers reduces the growth of the hospitality sector and the sustainability of community funding.

Arguments in favour of reducing the cap on gaming machine numbers mentioned that it is a balanced approach reflecting the approximate current number of machines, ensuring that current levels of funding are maintained and local business supported while still minimising gambling harm.

The argument that falling machine numbers necessarily results in reduced community funding does not appear to be valid. Firstly, Palmerston North is not restricted to apply for funding only from those gaming trusts operating machines in this city. Therefore, the funding opportunities are determined by the amount of community funding generated by gaming machines throughout New Zealand overall, and the specific criteria that gaming trusts may apply to funding applications. In theory, even if there were no gaming machines located in Palmerston North, applicants from this city may still receive funding from gaming trusts operating machines elsewhere in the country.

Secondly, the relationship between gaming machine numbers and the amount gambled (and consequently the amount of money available for community funding) is not clear. Where the supply of gaming machines exceeds demand for those machines, it is possible for the number of gaming machines to fall and yet the amount gambled on those machines to remain static (or even increase or decrease). In this situation, the amount gambled is not determined by the number of machines but the amount of money people are prepared to gamble. This relationship is evidenced by a comparison in the rates of decline in gaming machine numbers and gambling expenditure in Palmerston North. Despite gaming machine numbers falling by nearly 22% between 2011 and 2015, the amount gambled has fallen by less than 1%. This dissociation is reinforced with national statistics that show the number of gaming machines falling every year from 18,944 in 2009/10 to 16,614 in 2014/15, yet within the same period the amount gambled rose on two occasions: from 2009/10 to 2010/11 and from 2013/14 to 2014/15. While the overall trend is downwards, these increases in the amount gambled give weight to the theory that the amount gambled can increase while gaming machine numbers fall, at least until demand exceeds supply.

There is some merit to considering a sinking lid approach to gaming machine numbers. Submitters asserted that such an approach would be more effective than a cap, and would contribute to healthier communities. The key benefit of a sinking lid approach is simplicity, and avoids the possibility that new venues may emerge when existing venues close. However, the practical application of a cap, set at the appropriate level alongside other restrictions, can achieve substantially the same result. Location restrictions in the policy limit where new venues can establish, and can have an effect similar to that of relocating venues currently in undesired locations to places better suited for that activity. Furthermore, the policy is required to be reviewed every three years, which provides an opportunity for any cap to be reviewed and reset if necessary.

On the basis of this assessment, officers recommend that the policy set a cap on the total number of gaming machines with consent to operate at 347.

Removing the industrial zone as a permitted zone where gaming machine venues could be located.

All but two submitters were in favour of this proposal. It was designed to restrict the location of gaming venues from unsuitable locations if the relocation clause were relaxed to any venue to relocate rather than just those who were forced to relocate for reasons beyond their control. Viewed in this context, the rationale for removing the industrial zone for gambling venues is intended to restrict the number of potential locations, putting the emphasis on inner and outer business zones.

Of the two submitters opposed to this proposal, one submitter objected on the basis of a preference for a sinking lid policy, which would negate the need for any location-based restrictions. The second submitter appears to have misunderstood how this proposal would work, suggesting that “the big new industrial parks are not in our most vulnerable housing suburbs” and “Gambling Venues should not be allowed in areas of new subdivisions.” Neither the current policy nor the proposed policy would allow gambling venues in residential zoned land.

Officers recommend that clause 2.2 of both the Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy and the New Zealand Racing Board Venue Policy do not include the industrial zone as a permitted zone for new gambling or Racing Board venues, as outlined in the proposal.

Amending the relocation clause to permit relocation of existing venues once every 36 months

Most submitters were opposed to the proposal to permit venues to relocate once every 36 months. Three submitters were in favour of permitting venues to relocate, but two of those submitters did not favour the restriction of one relocation every 36 months. One submitter favoured retaining the current relocation clause.

Of those submitters opposed to venue relocation, their concerns revolved around transferring the harm caused by that venue to another part of the city; exacerbating the already high concentration of gambling venues in those areas where gambling venues are permitted; asserting that venue relocation is primarily a way of maximising revenue and moving machines to busier locations, not reducing gambling-related harm.

Of those submitters supportive of a relocation clause but opposed to the number of times they could relocate in a 36-month period, they were concerned that a venue could be unfairly prevented from relocating if subject to more than one adverse situation (for example, a fire and an earthquake) in one 36-month period. These submitters also emphasised the benefits of relocation generally, namely that it allows current venues to move out of undesirable areas such as residential areas and into business zones such as the CBD. It also enables venues to upgrade premises and provide more modern and attractive premises.

In assessing the arguments provided by submitters, officers note that the restriction on the number of times a venue could relocate in 36 months was intended to mitigate the risk of venues moving multiple times to take advantage of “busier locations.” While the risk of this approach may be minimal, it was suggested that limiting the number of times a venue could relocate in a given period (36 months was chosen as it represents the time between policy reviews) would discourage any premises from opportunistic relocation applications. If a restriction on the number of times a venue could relocate is not favoured, then officers would advise that the current relocation clause is left unchanged. As it is currently worded, the relocation clause permits relocations only if a venue is forced to move through events beyond their control. This does permit multiple relocations, but each relocation application would need to demonstrate the reason for moving and that it is beyond their control. Officers note that since the policy was adopted in 2012 there have been no successful applications for relocation consent.

In relation to the other arguments given by submitters, officers accept that there may be a relatively high concentration of gambling venues within the CBD. However, this is a function of the zone-based restrictions in the Policy, which permits venues to principally be located in the inner and outer business zones (which largely comprises the CBD). The alternative to this concentration of venues would be dispersion, which could arguably increase accessibility and visibility of gambling venues by making them available more widely throughout the city. When considered against theories of excess supply over demand, officers contend that the high concentration of venues in the CBD is unlikely to exacerbate gambling-related harm in the city.

On the basis of this assessment, officers recommend that the proposal to amend the relocation clause to permit relocation of a venue once every 36-months is accepted. If Councillors do not accept this recommendation, then it may be acceptable to continue the existing policy wording for relocation of venues that are forced to move through events beyond their control.

Other suggestions from submitters

There were a few other suggestions made by submitters, which are addressed below.

Sinking lid policy/lower cap to 300/ban pokie machines completely – these suggestions are alternatives to the proposal to lower the cap on gaming machines to 347, and have been partly addressed in that earlier section of this memorandum. A sinking lid policy is tantamount to a ban on new pokie machines, in that no new venues would be permitted. Current venues could continue to operate, but when they closed and surrendered their venue licence they would not be able to reopen. Council does not have the power to close a gambling venue or ban existing gambling venues from operating. The suggestion to lower the cap to 300 machines is a valid suggestion, but has no greater or lesser merit than any other suggested number for the cap, and simply represents a lower number of gaming machines permitted to operate.

Leave cap at 400 – this suggestion is an alternative to the proposal to lower the cap to 347 gaming machines, and represents a status quo. This suggestion was partly addressed earlier in the memorandum, in relation to opposition to the proposal to reduce the cap to 347 gaming machines. The argument given was that reducing gaming machine numbers does not reduce problem gambling but it does reduce local community funding opportunities. As was noted earlier, the association between gaming machine numbers and funding is not clear, and appears to be driven by factors other than the number of gaming machines (for instance, supply over demand).

Cap TAB venues – this suggestion was not included in the proposal, and it would therefore be beyond the scope of this consultation process to make such a change without further consultation. Nevertheless, the submitter argued a cap on TAB venues was advisable to guard against the potential evolution of sports betting which incorporated live footage of the game at the betting terminal, and the potential for TAB venues to avoid gaming machine restrictions by including gaming machines as part of a TAB venue. This latter point is unfounded, though, as an application for a Racing Board venue consent is separate for gaming machine venue consent. Even if consent were given for a Racing Board venue, this would not automatically confer the right to operate class 4 gaming machines, and if the cap were already reached then the Racing Board venue would not be granted consent to operate gaming machines at that venue.

On the question of the evolution of sports betting, this does not seem a compelling reason to cap the number of Racing Board venues in the City. Growth in this sector is unlikely to be related to the type of betting technology available. Instead, there has been no growth in the number of Racing Board venues since 2008 (one venue was closed, and a replacement venue opened in a new location several years later). The Racing Act does not permit the Council’s Racing Board Venue Policy to regulate TAB terminals in other venues such as pubs, so any growth of that aspect of race and sports betting is beyond the scope of this policy.

In summary, therefore, officers recommend that the changes outlined in the Statement of Proposal to the Council’s Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy and the Racing Board Venue Policy (and shown as tracked changes in the documents attached as appendices 1 and 2) are confirmed without further amendment.

4. NEXT STEPS

If the Council confirms the Committee’s recommendations, then the revised policies will be adopted. Officers will publish the final policies to the Council’s website and issue a public notice to that effect, notifying when the policies will come into effect.

Officers will contact submitters and advise them of Council’s decision. Under S102 of the Gambling Act the Council is obliged to provide a copy of the adopted Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy to the Secretary of Internal Affairs. Under S65E of the Racing Act the Council is also obliged to provide a copy of the adopted Racing Board Venue Policy to the Secretary of Internal Affairs and the New Zealand Racing Board.

Attachments

1.	Palmerston North Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy 2017 - draft for adoption ⇩
2.	Palmerston North New Zealand Racing Board Venue Policy 2017 - draft for adoption ⇩

Peter Ridge

Policy Analyst

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 March 2017

TITLE: Begging in the CBD

DATE: 3 March 2017

AUTHOR/S: Ian Littleworth, Manager - Community Engagement, Libraries and Community Services

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the report Begging in the CBD be received.

2. That Council does not extend the MASH Trust contract to provide targeted services supporting the social needs of beggars in the CBD.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Begging in the CBD
OPTION 1:	Not to continue the current targeted services contract
Community Views	Option has already been trialled
Benefits	No ongoing cost to support a contract that has limited ongoing benefit
Risks	Those begging are less supported in addressing their social needs
Financial	No cost implication
OPTION 2:	Formalise the current targeted services contract
Community Views	Has already been trialled
Benefits	Trial proved successful in supporting the social needs of those currently begging
Risks	Whilst this will continue to support social needs of those begging, it is unlikely to significantly reduce the number of beggars in the CBD
Financial	$5,750 + gst per month No funding allocated from within existing resources
OPTION 3:	Education campaign
Community Views	Similar campaign has been undertaken previously with limited buy-in from the community
Benefits	Donors may choose to not donate to beggars and/or shift their donations to those agencies that deliver services accessed by those begging
Risks	Campaign is unsuccessful in shifting donors away from giving money to beggars
Financial	$6,000 approx. No funding allocated from within existing resources
OPTION 4:	Placemaking options
Community Views	Not tested
Benefits	Placemaking initiatives may reduce the level of begging in high use areas
Risks	Moves those begging to other locations that are not covered by placemaking options
Financial	Undetermined
OPTION 5:	Development of begging Bylaw
Community Views	Undetermined
Benefits	Would enable action to be taken directly against individuals who are begging
Risks	Seen as a punitive approach to the issue that may also raise questions in regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Financial	Undetermined
OPTION 6:	Safe City Day Hosts
Community Views	Option originally supported by Safety Advisory Board in response to Council recommendation
Benefits	Ensures visible presence in the CBD targeting donor to not give to beggars, providing information to beggars and providing assistance in the case of aggressive behaviour
Risks	Seen as a ‘big stick’ approach to this issue
Financial	$4,500 + gst per month approx. No funding allocated from within existing resources
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	The recommended option (Option One) reflects the findings of the trial to deliver targeted services supporting the social needs of those begging in the CBD

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Palmerston North, like most cities in New Zealand has long had beggars in the CBD. Their numbers have varied over the years, but currently sit at around ten to twenty plus in the peak holiday times. There have been raised levels of concern reported from residents, retailers and visitors to the City, primarily centred around the behaviour of beggars which has been seen as intimidating, aggressive and generally disruptive to businesses and members of the public in the CBD.

1.1 The MASH Trust has undertaken a contract to deliver targeted services supporting the social needs of beggars in the CBD. This contract will finish on 24 March 2017. Attached is the interim report on the trial which includes a finding that whilst the trial achieved the outcomes required, the continuation of this contract in its current form will not stop all people from sitting in the CBD asking for money.

1.2 This report is in response to the following recommendations to Council passed at the 12 September 2016 Community Development Committee Meeting:

That Council approve a three month trial with the MASH Trust to deliver targeted services supporting beggars in the Central Business District.

That a review is undertaken at the two month stage of the MASH Trust trial and Officers report back to Council with the review findings and any future recommendations.

That Officers present plans for a 3 month educational campaign to Council at the next available opportunity.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Initial reports from Officers focused on a Council request to coordinate a day patrol through the Safety Advisory Board.

The following resolution was passed at the 2 May 2016 Council Planning and Policy meeting:

That further consideration is given to expanding the Give Wisely campaign, creating a day patrol or other approaches in consultation with the Safety Advisory Board and that options are reported back to the Council by August 2016.

The following recommendations were passed at the 13 June 2016 Community Service Committee meeting recommended to Council (Clause 30.16):

That Council approve the Palmerston North Safety Advisory Board (PNSAB) to coordinate a two month trial of the SafeCity Day Host initiative.

That Council approve the PNSAB to coordinate a two month Giving Wisely Campaign focussed in the Central Business District.

That the PNSAB report to council on their review of the SafeCity Day Host and Give Wisely Campaign initiatives.

2.2 In June 2016 the Council discussion shifted to a focus on considering options that addressed the wider social issues related to begging and beggars in the CBD.

At the 27 June 2016 Council meeting consideration was given to:

(i) Memorandum, dated 24 June 2016 and entitled “Proposal to address CBD Begging Issue – Additional Information

(ii) Committee recommendations as appended to these minutes.

Council resolved that:

Recommendation 30-16 (Proposal to address CBD begging issue) lie on the table to allow the Chief Executive to explore all options, including MASH Trust and the Safety Advisory Board and report back to the August 2016 Council meeting.

The following recommendations to Council were passed at the 12 September 2016 Community Development Committee Meeting:

That Council approve a three month trial with the MASH Trust to deliver targeted services supporting beggars in the Central Business District.

That a review is undertaken at the two month stage of the MASH Trust trial and Officers report back to Council with the review findings and any future recommendations.

That Officers present plans for a 3 month educational campaign to Council at the next available opportunity.

The following recommendations were passed at the 12 December 2016 Community Development Committee meeting:

That the report Begging in the CBD – Update be received

That the plans for an educational campaign be presented to Council as part of the required reporting on this issue in the New Year.

The following recommendation was passed at the 19 December 2016 Council meeting:

That the MASH Trust contract to deliver targeted services supporting beggars in the CBD be extended to 24 March 2017.

3. Description of options

3.1 Not to continue the current targeted services contract.

At the completion of the current trial on 24 March 2017, no further contract would be undertaken in regard to the provision of targeted services to those begging.

3.2 Formalise the current targeted service contract.

At the completion of the current trial of 24 March 2017 the contract for targeted services to those begging will be formalise as an ongoing contract.

3.3 Education Campaign.

Develop an education campaign encouraging people to consider other options alternatives when contemplating giving to beggars.

3.4 Placemaking options.

Undertake exploration of ‘placemaking’ type options focussed on moving those begging away from high traffic, visibility or risk areas.

3.5 Development of a Begging Bylaw.

The report on begging received by Council in May 2016 advised that a bylaw was not the most appropriate way of addressing begging.

3.6 Use of Safe City Day Hosts.

The Safe City Day Host programme targets donors to encourage them not to give to those begging, provides wrap-round information to those begging and provides assistance in the case of aggressive or inappropriate behaviour.

4. Analysis of options

Not to continue the current targeted services contract

At the completion of the current trial on 24 march 2017, no further action will be undertaken in regard to the provision of a targeted services contract.

The findings in the attached report indicate that whilst the MASH Trust contract has achieved the social needs outcomes required and that beggar numbers have reduced, the continuation of the contract in its current form will not stop people from sitting in the CBD asking for money.

The report also indicates that the core group of beggars are reasonably static and that their social needs have been assessed and assistance given where appropriate. It is unclear whether by continuing this work there would add any further benefit to those people?

Government and community agencies continue to have an active role in providing support to address the social needs of those begging. The MASH Trust report found that the results of opening the LUCK Venue at the weekends and over Christmas demonstrated a need for services during these times.

4.1 Formalise current targeted services contract

This option would mean that the trial’s deliverables and outcomes would be formalised into an ongoing service contract.

The MASH Trust trial was successful in ensuring that those begging were supported to access identified resources, support and activities. This option would ensure that the social needs of those currently begging and any new people would be identified and continue to be addressed. There would also be a continued presence on the street of suitably trained professionals.

Based on the cost of delivering the current trial contract, the potential cost of continuing this level of service into the future would be in the region of $5,750 plus gst per month. No funding has been allocated for this.

4.2 Education campaign

The intention of this campaign would be to provide information and education to people regarding begging in the CBD. This would include but not limited to, ensuring people understand they have no obligation to give to those begging, that there are alternatives to giving money directly to those begging and to report to Police any aggressive behaviour.

An education/media plan would need to be prepared to determine messaging and target audiences. This would have cost and staff resourcing implications.

In the report to 13 June 2016 Community Development committee it was indicated that a similar type campaign may cost in the region of $6,000. At this stage no funding has been allocated for this.

The previous Give Wisely campaign which focussed on encouraging donors to give to social organisations that supported those begging had limited success.

This option is not recommended as it is considered the benefit of a further campaign, albeit with different messaging; and the limited success of a previous campaign does not outweigh the cost and staff time involved or provides greatly increased community benefit.

4.3 Placemaking options

No work has been undertaken to explore this option or the detailed cost involved, but examples of what could be considered in the future include place activation through music, installing planter boxes and creating parklets. The intention would be to focus on popular areas for beggars to ensure they have limited opportunity to beg in those places.

The risk is that this would simply move the beggars to other areas, but this is may be an option that could also be considered as part of future streetscape planning?

4.4 Development of a Begging Bylaw

The report on begging that the Council received in May 2016 advised that a bylaw was not the most appropriate way of addressing begging, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the only means to deal with breaches of a bylaw that banned begging would be to prosecute individuals. This would require a documented and evidenced breach of the bylaw, prosecuted through the courts. If convicted, any sentence would be set by the judge, with the maximum penalty of $20,000 unlikely to apply for an otherwise minor infraction. Any fine imposed is likely to be closer to several hundred dollars. This is measured against the costs of prosecution which are likely to be much higher.

Secondly, there are also Bill of Rights issues relating to freedom of movement and freedom of association. Cooper Rapley expressed doubt that a bylaw that banned begging would be found compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Thirdly, there are often mental health or disability issues associated with begging, which could be exacerbated by a punitive approach taken through a bylaw.

4.5 Safe City Day Hosts

This option was originally explored in the 13 June Community Development Committee Meeting and in the 27 June 2016 Council meeting; and was not pursued in favour of exploring a trial through MASH Trust to deliver targeted services to those begging.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The MASH Trust has undertaken a contract to deliver targeted services supporting the social needs of beggars in the CBD. This contract will finish on 24 March 2017.

5.2 Their interim report found that through the trial people were able to be supported to access identified resources, support and activities. Numbers of those begging has reduced, but the report found that the continuation of the contract in its current form will not stop all people sitting in the CBD asking for money.

6. Next actions

6.1 No further action required

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

CBD Begging - MASH Trust report February 2017 ⇩

Ian Littleworth

Manager - Community Engagement

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 March 2017

TITLE: Conference Opportunity - NZPI Conference April 2017.

DATE: 6 March 2017

AUTHOR/S: Rachel Corser, Committee Administrator, City Corporate

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Community Development Committee

1. That the Committee approve the attendance of up to XX elected member(s) to attend, with expenses paid, to the NZPI Conference 2017 being held in Wellington on Tuesday 4 April to Friday 7 April 2017.

2. That, in the event the Committee approves the attendance of elected member(s) at the above training, then registrations of interest be invited from elected members wishing to attend, with expenses paid, and advise the Committee Administrator, Rachel Corser, by 12 noon Friday 17 March 2017.

1. ISSUE

The elected members’ budget for conference attendance and training opportunities is $81,732.00. As at 6 March 2017 there remains $27,711.00 available for the balance of the financial year ending 30 June 2017. This does not include outstanding invoices that have been previously approved, but have yet to be presented for payment.

Fees for the conference for full registration (including all workshops/field trips/social functions) will be $2,115.00 including GST.

No financial provision is to be made for any spouse or partner of an elected member attending any conference or training opportunity, other than for the Mayor’s spouse or partner attending a conference in association with the Mayor.

Note there is a Horizons Regional Council/Palmerston North City Council meeting scheduled for 4 April 2017 and three Councillor workshops scheduled for Friday 7 April 2017.

2. BACKGROUND

The NZPI Conference is a four day event taking place in Wellington on Tuesday 4 April 2017 to Friday 7 April 2017.

“This year’s New Zealand Planning Institute Conference, Changing Places, looks at the merging relationship between the built and the natural environment, and how we integrate the multi-purpose design of our urban spaces with the requirements of the ‘us’ that is you and me. Changing Places will be hosted in Wellington, which will pick up on the theme of its location being that of our central government, as well as the focus of the RMA reforms changing the planning landscape. Each year the conference draws planning leaders, Iwi, and practitioners from local government, universities, and consultancies, into a forward focused, expansive discourse on the challenges and opportunities ahead in relationship to planning best practice and implementation.”

The conference programme is available and is attached.

3. NEXT STEPS

The Committee may choose whether any elected members should attend the conference, and if so, how many, in which case the Committee could invite registrations of interest from elected members wishing to attend.

The Committee may permit the attendance of elected members at conference and training opportunities, with leave of absence and appropriate expenses paid; the decision on such attendance to be reported back to the Council by the Mayor.

If the Committee decides to approve the attendance of one or more elected members, registrations of interest will be sought from elected members. At the closing date of registrations (12 noon on Friday 17 March 2017), the Committee Administrator will advise the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the interest received, for them to make a decision on the successful registrant(s).

Once the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have advised the Committee Administrator of the successful registrant(s), all further information regarding the workshop will then be forwarded to that person or those persons direct.

Attachments

Conference Programme ⇩

Rachel Corser

Committee Administrator

Aleisha Rutherford (Chairperson)
Rachel Bowen (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Jim Jefferies
Susan Baty	Lorna Johnson
Adrian Broad	Duncan McCann
Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke	Karen Naylor
Vaughan Dennison	Bruno Petrenas
Lew Findlay QSM	Tangi Utikere
Leonie Hapeta