PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
COUNCIL
Community
Development Committee MEETING
7 May 2018
Order of Business
NOTE: The Community Development Committee meeting coincides
with the ordinary meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting.
The format for the meeting will be as follows:
- Planning and Strategy Committee will open
and adjourn immediately to following Community Development Committee.
- Community Development Committee will open,
conduct its business and then close.
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. Declarations
of Interest (if any)
Members are reminded of their duty to
give a general notice of any interest of items to be considered on this agenda
and the need to declare these interests.
4. 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.)
5. Presentation
- Legacy Page 7
6. Confirmation
of Minutes Page 9
“That the
minutes of the Community Development Committee meeting of 5 March 2018 Part I
Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”
7. Review
of City Ambassadors Trial Page 13
Report, dated 20
April 2018 from the Manager - Community Engagement, Ian Littleworth and the
Safe Communities Coordinator, Zoe Kavanagh.
8. Committee
Work Schedule Page 25
9. 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
(Heather Shotter), 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), General Manager,
Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), and Communications Advisor
(name) 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, Carly Chang and Rachel Corser), because of their knowledge and ability
to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of
the meeting.
[Add Council
Officers], 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], 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
Report
TO: Community Development Committee
MEETING DATE: 7 May 2018
TITLE: Review of City Ambassadors Trial
DATE: 20 April 2018
AUTHOR/S: Ian Littleworth, Manager - Community Engagement, Libraries and
Community Services
Zoe Kavanagh, Safe
Communities Coordinator, Libraries and Community Services
|
RECOMMENDATION(S)
TO Council
1. That
the report Review of City Ambassadors Trial be
received
2. That
the City Ambassadors Initiative continue on an ongoing basis over the summer
period (December to March) with a dual focus of city safety and city vibrancy
3. That
as part of its 2018/28 10 Year Plan deliberations Council give considerations
to including Funding of $34,000 per annum for the City Ambassador initiative.
|
Summary of options analysis for
|
Problem or Opportunity
|
Following the completion of the City Ambassador trial this report
provides a review of the trial including recommendations for Council
consideration
|
|
OPTION 1:
|
That the City Ambassadors Initiative be continued
|
|
Community
Views
|
Stakeholder
feedback indicates support for the continuation of this initiative over the
summer period with a continued focus on city vibrancy and city safety
|
|
Benefits
|
Maintains
a high visible presence in the CBD that assists with city vibrancy and safety
Builds
on the publicity and awareness of Ambassadors created as a result of the
trial
|
|
Risks
|
The
City Ambassador initiative is seen as the panacea for CBD issues instead of
being a component of a number of things that drive city safety
|
|
Financial
|
$34,000
to $144,000
$34,000
is recommended
No
funding is provided in the draft 10 Year Plan
|
|
OPTION 2:
|
That the City Ambassadors Initiative not be continued
|
|
Community
Views
|
Stakeholder
feedback does not support this option
|
|
Benefits
|
None
|
|
Risks
|
Reduced
visible presence in the CBD which may lead to a renewal of antisocial
behaviour
Loss
of momentum build as a result of the trial
|
|
Financial
|
None
|
|
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic
Direction
|
Supports a Connected and Safe Community by contributing to
Palmerston North becoming a city where people feel safe and are safe
Supports a Creative and Exciting City by contributing to a vibrant
city centre
|
Rationale for the recommendations
1. Overview
of the problem or opportunity
1.1 Earlier in 2017 the city and
in particular the CBD, experienced an increase in anti-social behaviour from a
small but determined group of youth, which consequently became a subject of
discussion at the Safety Advisory Board (SAB).
1.2 In
response to that SAB discussion and a request by Mayor Smith, a Council report
was presented that recommended that a City Ambassador trial be undertaken which
potentially provided a solution that not only assisted with addressing the youth
behaviour issue but proactively added significantly to the city’s
promotional opportunities, vibrancy of the CBD and increased the reputation of
the city.
1.3 This report provides
recommendations for Committee consideration based on the review undertaken
at the conclusion of City Ambassadors Trial
2. Background
and previous council decisions
2.1 At the 24 October 2017
Council meeting consideration was given to a report recommending that a City
Ambassadors trail be undertaken.
Council resolved that:
1. That the report City
Ambassadors – Proposed Trial be received.
2. That approval is given
to undertake a 3 month City Ambassadors trial.
3.
That funding support of $32,200 toward the City Ambassadors trial will
be sourced from
within existing Libraries & Community Services Unit budget.
2.2 The
objectives of the Palmerston North City Ambassadors would be to help increase
visitor satisfaction, promote the CBD and city, and assist with community
safety in the CBD. This option is in line with priorities in the draft Creative
and Liveable, and Connected Community strategies working towards a vibrant,
liveable, connected, and safe city.
Their
ambassadorial role included:
· Providing general and
promotional information and directional assistance to visitors
around the CBD
· Providing direction and resources to City events and City
facilities and amenities
· Liaising regularly with I-Site
· Making people feel more comfortable when they are out enjoying the
CBD
· Act
as ‘eyes and ears’ for antisocial activity and reporting it to the
Police for action
· Reporting any damage to property to Council
It was noted at the 24 October 2017 meeting
that the purpose of the role was not to act as a security presence in the CBD,
instead the strong emphasis was on being a host and ambassador for Palmerston
North.
2.3 The
trial was conducted between 12 December 2017 and 25 February 2018 but
was extended to 11 March 2018 to cover a period of significant city
events held in the CBD.
2.4 Attached is the review document prepared by the Council Officers.
3
Description of options
3.1 That the City Ambassadors
initiative be continued
Whilst it is difficult to explicitly quantify the benefits of this initiative,
it should be noted that we did have a sustained level of CBD engagement through
the period of this initiative across a wide range of people and areas of help.
The stories that have been captured paint a picture of the range of the
connections made and the impacts they had.
The intangible benefit of having highly visible Ambassadors out on the streets
interacting with the community, being the eyes and ears for the Police
and generally acting as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour should not be
underestimated. That intangible benefit adds significantly to the sense of
safety in the city and adds to the reputation of this city.
Based
on the above premise the recommendation to Council is that the City Ambassador
Initiative is continued on an ongoing basis.
Within the scope of this option there are a number of
further options that could be considered.
Future focus of City Ambassador Initiative
The focus of the original trial was two-fold. Firstly with a city safety
perspective to provide a presence in the CBD to deter antisocial behaviour:
secondly an ambassadorial role to add significantly to
the vibrancy of the CBD, the city’s promotional opportunities and
increasing the reputation of the city.
The review document indicates that 85.2% of interactions were vibrancy related
with 14.8% being safety related. Whilst there is a significantly lower amount
of safety related interactions those particular interactions and the highly
visible presence in the CBD potentially contributed to the significant
reduction in crime statistics for the CBD. It should be acknowledged that there
are other factors which contributed to the reduction of crime beyond the City
Ambassadors. It should also be noted the high level of alcohol related
interactions that occurred during the trial. These account for 13% of all
interactions.
Given the high level of vibrancy interactions coupled with the potential impact
on CBD safety from having a visible presence in the CBD, it is recommended that
any future initiatives continue to have the same dual focus.
Duration of Initiative
Although the initial trial was over the summer season (December to March) there
are additional time options that could also be considered, including extending
to all holiday periods - through to this becoming a regular service delivered
across the whole year.
The trial demonstrated that there is a benefit in continuing to run this
initiative across the December – March summer period. It is recommended
that as a minimum period this is continued.
In considering the expansion of this initiative to all holiday periods, it was
felt that the implications and additional cost in trying to coordinate a
start/stop service that still delivered a quality service standard across each
holiday period would outweigh the benefit of providing that level of service.
It is felt that the cost implication of running this initiative on an ongoing
weekly basis is too prohibitive for the benefit that will be delivered.
Cost implication
Currently there is no funding allocated in the draft 10
Year Plan for this initiative
The following costs are based on a weekly cost of $2,300 plus an initial set-up
cost. The cost indication for the ongoing weekly option does include funding
for new support staff to oversee the initiative.
|
Time Period
|
Indicative Costs
|
|
Summer Season (13 Weeks)
|
$34,000 p.a.
|
|
All holiday periods incl Summer season (approx. 22 weeks)
|
$55,000 p.a.
|
|
Annual
|
$144,000 p.a.
Incl funding for support function
|
3.1 That the City Ambassador
initiative not be continued
Based on the data provided from the trial it could be considered that an
initiative that delivered 1027 hours of direct CBD engagement for a total of
393 recorded interactions is not cost beneficial. In simplistic terms this
would equate to one recorded interaction for every 2.6 hours.
Equally the level of recorded interactions against the total cost of
approximately $32,000 may not be considered cost beneficial.
In not continuing the trial there is potentially a risk that the original
drivers for the trial, antisocial behaviour, could return. Equally the benefits
gained from running the trial and providing a CBD presence would be lost.
There is no cost benefit in not continuing the trial as no ongoing funding is
allocated for this initiative.
4 Conclusion
4.1 The review of the City
Ambassadors trial showed that 393 interactions by Ambassadors were recorded
during the trial with 85.2% being vibrancy related and 14.8% safety related. It
is noted that anecdotally, a substantial number of other interactions were not
recorded as they were more casual in nature.
4.2 The general perception and
feedback from stakeholders is that the role and visible presence of the City
Ambassadors made a valuable contribution to the vibrancy and safety within the
CBD. In particular crime statistics for the trial period were down
significantly on previous years. It is acknowledged that there would also have
been other factors which also contributed to the reduction of CBD crime beyond
the City Ambassadors.
4.3 Based on the actual and
perceived benefits to city vibrancy and city safety, it is recommended that the
City Ambassador Initiative continues.
5 Next actions
5.1 The inclusion of appropriate funding in the 10 Year Plan is
considered as part of the upcoming 10 Year Plan deliberations
5.2 Council Officers take into consideration the learnings from the
trial in their future planning for City Ambassadors.
6 Outline of
community engagement process
6.1 Available feedback on the
trial has been included in the attached review document.
6.2 In response to the
completion of the trial the Safety Advisory Board has expressed its support for
the continuation of the City Ambassadors Initiative over the summer period. The
SAB is also supportive of maintaining a city vibrancy and safety focus. They
did ask that consideration be given to running this initiative across all
holiday periods. This has been included in this report.
6.3 Feedback from the
trial’s steering group, SafeCity Trust, NZ Police, I-Site and Council
Officers have also endorsed the continuation of this initiative across the
summer period.
|
Does the
Committee have delegated authority to decide?
If Yes quote
relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>
|
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?
|
Yes
|
|
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
|
1.
|
Review of City Ambassadors Trial April 2018
⇩ 
|
|
|
Ian Littleworth
Manager - Community Engagement
|
Zoe Kavanagh
Safe Communities Coordinator
|
|
