Agenda of Community Development Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Community Development Committee MEETING

2 September 2019

Order of Business

NOTE: The Community Development Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee. The Committees will conduct business in the following order:

- Planning & Strategy Committee

- Community Development Committee

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. Deputation - Christmas in the Sqaure 25th Anniversary Page 7

6. Presentation - Disability Reference Group Page 9

7. Presentation - Manawatu Multicultural Council Page 13

8. Confirmation of Minutes Page 15

“That the minutes of the Community Development Committee meeting of 5 June 2019 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

9. Capacity and Capability Building in the Community Sector Page 19

Memorandum, presented by Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

10. Welcoming Communities - Accreditation Page 43

Report, presented by Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

11. Social Wellbeing Forum 2019 Page 55

Memorandum, presented by Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

12. Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2020 - approval for consultation Page 97

Report, presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy and Policy Manager.

13. Committee Work Schedule Page 191

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 (Heather Shotter), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), Chief Infrastructure Officer (Tom Williams), General Manager – Strategy and Planning (Sheryl Bryant), General Manager - Community (Debbie Duncan), Chief Customer and Operating Officer (Chris Dyhrberg), General Manager - Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), Sandra King (Executive Officer) 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 Executive Leadership 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.

Democracy Administrators (Carly Chang, Natalya Kushnirenko, and Penny Odell), 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

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 05 June 2019, commencing at 9.10am

Members

Present:

Councillors Aleisha Rutherford (in the Chair) Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Tangi Utikere.

Non Members:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Adrian Broad, Jim Jefferies and Bruno Petrenas.

Apologies:

The Mayor Grant Smith (on Council Business) and Councillors Adrian Broad (early departure) and Vaughan Dennison (late arrival on Council Business).

Councillor Vaughan Dennison entered the meeting at 10.25am during consideration of clause 10-19.2. He was not present for clauses 7 to 10-19.1 inclusive.

7-19

Apologies

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 7-19 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, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

8-19

Deputation - Mayors Taskforce for Jobs

Noa Woolloff, Taskforce Co-ordinator for Mayors Taskforce for Jobs (MTFJ) made a deputation outlining the work that the organisation does.

Established in 2000, MTFJ was set up by Mayors and Business leaders to create better opportunities for jobs. It was represented by 65 of the 67 Mayors nationwide, with PNCC being a very engaged member.

Young people were facing many challenges and over 87,000 were not engaged in education, training or employment. MTFJ had many areas that they were involved in to try and address these issues, such as:

- Outward Bound scholarship, each worth $3,600

- Industry Training Graduations aimed at elevating the status of trades and service careers

- The Tuia Programme that aims to build on mentoring experiences for young people

- Continue to advocate for central government system change to a truly accessible driving licensing programme.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 8-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

9-19

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Community Development Committee meeting of 1 April 2019 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 9-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

10-19	Options for Library Services in Highbury Memorandum, dated 14 May 2019 presented by the Manager - Libraries, Community, Linda Moore. During discussion Elected Members requested that further engagement take place with the wider community. They believed there was more clarity required as to what the community really wanted and to further explore co-location with Te Aroha Noa.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Leonie Hapeta. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the memorandum dated 14 May 2019 and titled “Options for Library Services in Highbury” be received
	Clause 10-19 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, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Leonie Hapeta. Councillor Vaughan Dennison entered the meeting at 10.25am 2. That the Chief Executive be instructed to provide a report back to the Community Development Committee following further community engagement around the future of the Library services in the Highbury Area and providing detail of the outcomes of the next steps outlined in the report dated 14 May 2019 and titled “Options for Library Services in Highbury”.
	Clause 10-19 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.

11-19

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Community Development Committee receive its Work Schedule dated June 2019.

Clause 11-19 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 finished at 10.37am

Confirmed 2 September 2019

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Capacity and Capability Building in the Community Sector

Presented By: Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager

APPROVED BY: Debbie Duncan, General Manager - Community

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the memorandum dated 2 September 2019 and titled Capacity and Capability Building in the Social Sector be received.

2. That Council endorses the next steps as described:

· Support PNCSC to develop and implement shared services to tenants of Hancock Community House;

· Include a new condition in the tenancy leases, at either the commencement of a new tenancy or at renewal, that requires Hancock House tenants to actively work with PNCSC and other tenants to explore opportunities for shared practices.

· Develop an enhanced professional development programme for community groups:

o Work with PNCSC to develop, fund and promote a comprehensive capability development programme targeting the highest priority Domains of Capability.

o Facilitate and promote an annual programme of workshops to be delivered in collaboration with other agencies and organisations.

o Develop and promote a “package” of professional services;

· Encourage community groups to take annual Navigator assessments to measure and improve their organisational capability.

1. ISSUE

Palmerston North depends on having a strong community and voluntary sector to support our more vulnerable communities. Priority 3 of the Connected Community Strategy is to:

“build community capacity to take ownership and encourage community leadership of solutions, including better co-ordination between community organisations and groups.”

The specific programme in the Community Support Plan that this memorandum addresses is to:

“Examine and make recommendations on the capacity and capability programmes currently being carried out by other agencies (by end of 2018/2019).”

2. BACKGROUND

Council acknowledges and appreciates the key role that the community sector plays in supporting the social fabric of the city. It is also aware that in order for community groups to show leadership and take ownership of solutions to community issues they must have the capacity and capability to do so. There has been significant activity in recent years by many organisations, agencies and the community sector to provide support, but this has largely been uncoordinated.

A memo to the Community Development Committee on 11 September 2018 presented the findings of the annual Social Wellbeing Forum that was held in May 2018. Council resolved that:

“the Chief Executive provide a response to the key concerns of the Social Wellbeing Forum report including how Council could support a more coordinated approach”.

A further memo to the Community Development Committee on 1 October 2018 summarised the capability and concerns within the sector; the potential solutions identified at the forum and an account of current council activities. Council requested:

“That a further report on capacity and capability building in the community sector be presented back to a Community Development Committee meeting in 2019 upon completion of an environmental scan, including a summary of the:

· Nature and extent of the capacity and capability issues facing different organisations within the wider sector;

· Range, availability and accessibility of existing capacity and capability building services;

· Options (including “quick wins”) to support a co-ordinated approach to the development of collective solutions.”

This memorandum addresses each these 3 components in turn.

3. Approach

The approach taken to gather the information and the relevant sections are:

	Component	Information gathering approach taken
Environmental scan	Nature and extent of the capacity and capability issues facing different organisations within the wider sector	· Social Wellbeing Forum Report · Sector self-assessment* · Helicopter view assessment · Interviews
Environmental scan	Range, availability and accessibility of existing capacity and capability building services	· Institutional knowledge · Online research · Meetings with funders and agencies
Response	Options (including “quick wins”) to support a co-ordinated approach to the development of collective solutions.	· Consultation with umbrella groups · Community Development Team brainstorm

*NZ Navigator is an online self-assessment tool that is focussed on building strong and effective community organisations. It was developed by Platform Trust and Bishop's Action Foundation supported by the Department of Internal Affairs and Rabid Technologies. This highly regarded digital tool, in conjunction with a number of other activities, has been extensively used in the preparation of this memorandum.

4. environmental scan

4.1 Methodology

A comprehensive environmental scan was achieved through four prongs of information gathering, each of which is discussed below. This enabled the findings of a relatively small response to the self-assessment to be ‘tested’ for representativeness.

Section 4.2. Social Wellbeing Forum - A deep reading of the 2018 Forum Report.

Section 4.3 Sector Self-Assessment - Approximately 200 community organisations were invited to carry out an anonymous self-assessment using the NZ Navigator tool. In preserving the anonymity of each group we were able to encourage an honest self-assessment, unaffected by ‘group think’, while obtaining a combined assessment for the sector as a whole.

Section 4.4. Helicopter view - A second NZ Navigator assessment was run to capture the opinion gained through the deep and wide connections and experience gained from working across the sector.

Section 4.5. Interviews – Four umbrella groups were interviewed by officers to gain deeper insight. The interviews happened after the Navigator assessment in order to stimulate thinking prior to the interviews.

4.2 Social Wellbeing forums

The 2019 Social Wellbeing Forum focussed on developing solutions to issues identified in previous forums and deliberately set capacity and capability issues aside, knowing that this Memo was being researched.

The 2018 Forum was not attended by all groups – or even most groups – working in the social sector and this coupled with nearly 50% of attendees being from central or local government, or funding agencies, means that the capability issues that were raised cannot be held to be representative of the sector as a whole.

The capability issues listed in the table below have been extracted through close reading of the 2018 Social Wellbeing Forum report but there is no means to weight them by importance or prevalence.

*Issue*	Description
Communication	Complicated language and changing terminology is a barrier.
Evaluation	Measuring the outcomes achieved by community organisations
Finance	Including the administrative burden of the application process and a lack of awareness about potential sources of funding.
Governance	Including recruitment and training.
People	Including high staff turnover, ongoing training needs and employment law.
Relationships	Connection and collaboration between community organisations, but also connection between central and local government.

4.3 Sector Self-assessment

NZ Navigator self-assessments enables users to assess the current capability of their organisation by rating all the important areas of the organisation’s operation through 9 Domains of Capability: direction, governance, leadership, people, administration, finances, communication, evaluation, and relationships. Officers invited 200 community organisations to complete a Navigator self-assessment. [Appendix 1.] Collectively the sector assessed itself as ‘successful’ across all 9 Domains of Capability however there were significant variances between respondents depending on whether they were volunteers, staff or board members.

The 3 Domains the sector considered itself weakest in were:

· Evaluation

· Administration

· People.

4.4 Helicopter View Assessment

To supplement the self-assessments Officers ran supplementary Navigator surveys with ‘Umbrella groups’ who provide support, services and representation to other community groups working in the same arena. [Appendix 2]. The view of the umbrella groups is that the sector overall is:

· ‘viable’ in 7 Domains;

· ‘vulnerable’ in Leadership and Administration, and

· ‘successful’ in the Relationships Domain.

4.5 Interviews

Officers interviewed 4 umbrella groups to test that the findings of the Navigator self-assessments were representative. [Appendix 3.] The 3 Domains the Combined Helicopter View considered itself weakest in were:

· Communication

· Evaluation

· Finances with Leadership and Administration close behind.

5. Nature and extent of the capacity and capability issues

The chart below was developed by assigning a value of 1–3 points for each Domain, for each of the four methods used to assess capability in the sector. A score of 3 meaning that the Domain was viewed as a weakness and thus a higher priority. Stacking the scores together shows the priority Domains that need development.

The interviews confirmed that the highest priority Domains of Capability for the sector are: Communication, Finances, People, Evaluation and Administration.

6. RANGE, AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF Existing capacity and capability building services

6.1 Council Support

Council casts a wide net, working alongside the wider non-profit sector to support its capacity and capability [Appendix 4]. Community funding is a significant method to help community groups grow capacity. Strategic Priority Grants direct funding towards groups whose programmes and activities directly contribute to Council outcomes.

6.2 DIA – Department of Internal Affairs.

The Community Matters programme uses a community-led approach to support groups seeking funding. Community advisors help in various ways including providing information and advice, brokering relationships and administering lottery grant funds.

6.3 MSD - Ministry of Social Development

A number of community providers contract to government agencies to provide services. All Community Investment-funded services and programmes were moved to results based contracts in 2017/2018 with clear performance measures aligned with the Results Measurement Framework (ie RBA – Results Based Accountability.) Where capability shortfalls are observed with contract holders MSD advisors work closely over an extended period with the organisations to achieve improvement. Thus MSD cast their net deeply in a very specific area.

Fig 1. While PNCC supports capability development over the entire non-profit sector, DIA provide funds to a narrower group, MSD provides targeted capability development assistance to specific groups they contract with.

6.3 Te Puni Kokiri works across government and the private sector to support Māori development. Their website has a section to help trustees and directors of Māori organisations.

6.5 Palmerston North Community Services Council

Palmerston North Community Services Council (PNCSC) is based in Hancock Community House. PNCSC is funded by Council to deliver capability building programmes to community organisations. Their mission is to:

“take a lead role in facilitating the empowerment of community groups to participate in and contribute to the community and its wellbeing.”

6.6 Professional Development

[Appendix 5] lists different resources available for community groups to grow their capability and capacity. These range from fee to free and online to in person. These are additional to the comprehensive library of current resources accessible to groups who take Navigator assessments as part of the feedback report generated after an assessment.

There is no paucity of affordable resources and programmes that community organisations can access in order to develop capability and increase their capacity. The real issue to address is encouraging groups to take advantage of readily available resources which would lift the collective capability of the sector as a whole.

7. Options to support a co-ordinated approach

8.1 Shared Services

Hancock Community House (HCH) was opened in 2011. The objective of HCH was to strengthen and improve the capacity and capability of the community sector by locating community service providers within a community house and the development of shared services. [Appendix 6].

Shared service aspirations have not been easy to implement from the outset. Community groups are independent of Council and we can’t ‘make’ them do what we want them to do in terms of running their own organisations”. To a large extent this situation remains unchanged.

A survey of HCH tenants in 2018 showed that all agreed there were more opportunities to support the capacity and capability of their organisation and a number of ideas which could be developed and implemented through shared services at HCH. In early 2019 a contract was let to PNCSC to provide administrative services for HCH. While the concept of developing shared services was built into the new contract, it is anticipated that the development of shared arrangements may take some time.

As the individual tenant groups have their tenancy contracts directly with PNCC, it would be possible to negotiate the insertion of a condition, at either the commencement of a new tenancy or at renewal, that requires tenants to actively work with PNCSC and other tenants to explore opportunities for shared practices.

8.2 Professional Development programme

Officers could work with PNCSC to develop and fund a comprehensive capability development programme targeting the highest priority Domains of Capability. This could be developed within existing operations but would also include supporting PNCSC to source significant additional funding from external funders such as the Tindall Foundation and DIA, so that high-cost and quality providers like Exult can be contracted to deliver locally.

We could also fund a representative from each umbrella organisation to attend the annual Exult conference, with the expectation that learnings and knowledge will feed into their workplans and trickle down to groups they work with.

Officers could facilitate a series of workshops to be delivered with other agencies and organisations:

· Governance obligations with Charities Commission, IRD and DIA,

· Marketing and Communication with PNCC,

· Event management including traffic management, permits, risk assessment with PNCC,

· Business continuity plans

· Writing funding applications

· ‘Things we learnt’ & ‘What we are proud of’ where groups reflect on things that they learnt the hard way or to share things they are doing really well.

8.3 Results Based Accountability

The 2019-2022 SPG recipients have been coached through the implementation of the RBA methodology that officers are using to monitor the collective impact of the SPG. This has involved significant upskilling in the Capability Domains of: Direction, Relationships, Evaluation and Communication and represents a quick win. The RBA system is used around the world to improve organisational outcomes and performance and as we develop a body of data and experience we will see this flow through to the sector.

8.4 Navigator Assessment Tool.

Officers will promote the Navigator self-assessment tool so that community organisations can measure their capability, identify areas for improvement, carry out an upskilling programme using the capability building resources and tools which are freely available online and track improvement annually.

8.5 Professional Services

Periodically community groups need to access professional advice in the areas of, for example, HR and people management, finance, legal, communications and marketing. There are several mechanisms in place for this already including:

· Legal Entity project - PNCSC have a fund to pay a legal firm to provide advice to a community group as needed.

· Community Accounting is a similar project which works with Massey University to connect accountant students to work 1:1 with a community organisation.

· UCOL Design School – project work as required

· Massey School of Social Work - student placements at Hancock Community House for projects.

There could be benefit in taking a deeper look to ascertain whether there are other experts available through, for example, the Volunteer Resource Centre and corporate community workdays where staff are encouraged to donate 1 day a year to the community.

8.6 Funding

Officers will be taking a more proactive approach in working with community groups to encourage the diversification of funding streams and to increase the overall amount of grant funding coming into the City. The availability of the various funding sources available to groups will be promoted more widely.

8.7 Collaboration with other agencies

Officers meet regularly with colleagues from DIA, MSD, EECT and other agencies working in the City to maintain relationships, open channels of communication and identify future opportunities to coordinate complementary activities. For example, MSD work closely in a 1:1 capacity with contract holders to address specific capability issues. PNCC complements this targeted approach by working across the sector taking a 1:many approach lifting overall capability.

8.8 Communications

Maintaining relationships is core business for officers and the new SPG / RBA process reinforces this approach. However, officers have recognised the need to improve the level of communications for all significant activities utilising the most appropriate delivery channels. This may include press releases, contributions to Flax magazine, (distributed monthly by PNCSC to community groups), web site updates and social media posts.

7. conclusion

A four-pronged inquiry approach has identified that the highest priority Domains of Capability for the community sector are: Communication, Finances, People, Evaluation and Administration.

There is currently a plethora of resources and programmes available for groups to upskill from a range of different providers including funders, ministries and other organisations. There are solutions for all budgets and many are available for free from the internet. The challenge is to encourage groups to take advantage of the resources available in order to enhance their capability and capacity. A key component to support the use of these resources will be our ongoing collaboration with other providers to ensure that community groups are aware of the various resources and are able to access them in the most meaningful way for them.

A priority for Council’s Community Development team will be to encourage community groups to evaluate their own capacity, identify development areas, implement a programme of skill development and then monitor progress. This could be further enhanced by supplementing the existing resources and opportunities with an enhanced professional development programme, sponsoring attendance at national conferences and facilitating workshops for community groups to come together to share learnings and good practice.

The table below shows the existing level of officer activity supporting development in the 9 Domains of Capability alongside the new activities.

*Current activities are green while the proposed new activities are in yellow.

8. reporting

Capacity and Capability activities and outcomes supporting the achievement of the Community Support Plan will be monitored and reported to Council through its regular, quarterly and end of year reporting processes.

9. Next Steps

Council’s clear vision and goals is enabling officers to take a more proactive and strategic approach in its work with the community sector; and the implementation of following “next steps” will form an integral part in the delivery of our Community Development operational programme:

· Support PNCSC to develop and implement shared services to tenants of Hancock Community House;

· Include a new condition in the tenancy leases, at either the commencement of a new tenancy or at renewal, that requires tenants to actively work with PNCSC and other tenants to explore opportunities for shared practices.

· Develop an enhanced professional development programme for community groups:

o Work with PNCSC to develop, fund and promote a comprehensive capability development programme targeting the highest priority Domains of Capability.

o Facilitate and promote an annual programme of workshops to be delivered in collaboration with other agencies and organisations.

o Develop and promote a “package” of professional services;

· Encourage community groups to take annual Navigator assessments to measure and improve their organisational capability.

Activities and outcomes will be monitored and reported to Council through its regular, quarterly and end of year reporting processes.

12 Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
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?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		Yes
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Community Support Plan The action is: b) Sustainable practices – Build capacity and capability in community organisations.
Contribution to strategic direction	To describe evidence of the capability needs within the community sector.

Attachments

1.	App 1 - Navigator Survey - Self Assessment ⇩
2.	App 2 - Navigator Survey - Helicopter View ⇩
3.	App 3 - Interviews with umbrella groups ⇩
4.	App 4 - Current PNCC Activity ⇩
5.	App 5 - Existing Resources ⇩
6.	App 6 - Shared Services ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Welcoming Communities - Accreditation.

PRESENTED BY: Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager, Community

APPROVED BY: Debbie Duncan, General Manager - Community

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the report Welcoming Communities - Accreditation be received.

2. That Council confirms its commitment to Welcoming Communities as an ongoing programme.

3. That the Chief Executive be instructed to make an application for Palmerston North to be accredited as a Welcoming Community (Established).

4. That Council note consideration of additional funding of $25k per annum will be referred to the 2020/2021 Annual Budget process.

Summary of options analysis for

Opportunity	Welcoming Community Accreditation
OPTION 1:	Seek accreditation as a Welcoming Community (Established).
Community Views	The Welcoming Communities Advisory Group is strongly in favour of this option.
Benefits	Council continues to create an intentionally welcoming community and work to date is recognised. Council gains another credential to sit alongside our Safe City accreditation which assists in attracting people to move to our City to live, work or study. The provision of international education and our reputation as a multi-cultural city are significant contributors to our City’s economy.
Risks	Nil
Financial	$100k pa - an annual increase of $25k pa additional to the $75k pa currented budgeted in LTP. (PNCC has received $50k pa ‘subsidy’ pa for the 3 year pilot.)
OPTION 2:	Continue Welcoming Community activity as business as usual.
Community Views	This option is less favourable to the Advisory Group than option one.
Benefits	Council continues to create an intentionally welcoming community.
Risks	Work to date is not recognised discouraging the community partners we work with on the advisory board. Activities are scaled back.
Financial	$90k pa - an annual increase of $20k pa additional to the $75k pa currented budgeted in LTP. (PNCC has received $50k pa ‘subsidy’ pa for the 3 year pilot.)
OPTION 3:	Stop Welcoming Community programme once the pilot ends on 30/06/2020.
Community Views	This is the least favoured option of stakeholders.
Benefits	Cost savings.
Risks	Reputational risk and potential negative impact on community wellbeing in long term.
Financial	$75k pa removed from LTP budgets.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Community Support Plan The action is: Implement the Welcoming Communities Initiative [Action] and achieve accreditation [Where we want to be].
Contribution to strategic direction		The Welcoming Communities programme provides an innovative framework for Council to develop, provide and advocate for services and facilities that create a connected, welcoming and inclusive community.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Immigration New Zealand (INZ - part of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) have recently launched the Welcoming Communities accreditation framework [Appendix 1]. Under the framework, a council can opt to become accredited as a Welcoming Community through a four-stage accreditation model: Committed, Established, Advanced and Excelling.

All councils participating in the pilot now have the opportunity to apply for accreditation to be considered an Established Welcoming Community. MBIE are offering the first accreditation application to the pilot councils at no fee; however, pilot Councils are expected to apply for Established status first, with Advanced and Excelling not available initially. This will allow MBIE to test this aspect of the accreditation framework during the pilot period. Pilot councils need not apply for Committed status, as the requirements of this level have already been established earlier in the pilot.

1.2 It is necessary to review Council’s commitment to the Welcoming Community programme because the pilot funding from INZ of $50k a year will end from 20/21 which means that PNCC will need to fund the programme in full. This will require an increase of $25k to budget programme: 1448 from Year 3 in the LTP.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Two year Welcoming Community pilot

a. Welcoming Communities – Te Waharoa ki ngā Hapori, an initiative of Immigration New Zealand, is a pilot programme to support newcomers to have a sense of belonging through social, economic and civic participation and engagement. Under Welcoming Communities, individual councils and groups of council participating in the programme take a leadership role in creating welcoming and inclusive environments for newcomers, and in doing so support their region’s growth.

b. For the purposes of the pilot, the term newcomers refers to recent migrants (up to 5 years in New Zealand), former refugees and international students. It is acknowledged that the programme also has positive secondary benefits for existing residents, as well as for those relocating to Palmerston North from other parts of New Zealand.

c. The programme is part of an emerging global network which aims to engage local communities to be intentionally welcoming to newcomers. Other programmes around the world include Welcoming America (United States) and Welcoming Cities (Australia).

d. Whereas previous settlement support approaches have focused solely on the incoming migrant, Welcoming Communities is innovative in that it shifts the focus to improving the environment into which the newcomer is entering, putting the onus on the receiving community to be intentionally inclusive.

e. The pilot commenced in June 2017, and was due to run until June 2019, but has recently been extended a further year through to June 2020. The decision to extend was allow extra time for pilot sites to implement, embed and evaluate welcoming activities.

f. The core components of the national Welcoming Communities programme framework are:

· The Welcoming Communities Standard for NZ, which provides councils and communities with a benchmark for what a successful Welcoming Community looks like. The Standard’s eight outcome areas describe what you would expect to see in a community that has taken a deliberate and considered approach to become more welcoming to all its newcomers. Local Welcoming Plans are developed by participating Councils and communities based on the elements of the Standard;

· A network for knowledge sharing and support, both nationally (between participating Councils and with INZ), and internationally (with members of related programmes in other countries); and

· The accreditation process, to celebrate success, as described below.

2.2 Funding

g. The pilot has been funded by PNCC with support from INZ:

· INZ: $50,000 per annum for three years as a contribution towards a designated Welcoming Communities Coordinator, one-off contributions of $9,500 towards implementation of welcoming activities and $1,500 for Coordinator professional development in 2018/2019.

· PNCC: $10,000 in 2018/2019 to support the implementation of welcoming activities, plus overhead costs associated with employing a Coordinator.

2.3 Strategic commitment

h. The implementation of the Welcoming Communities programme is a deliverable of the Community Support Plan, under the Connected Community Strategy. Specifically, Council states an intention under Priority 1 of Goal 3 to: Develop, provide and advocate for services and facilities that create a connected, welcoming and inclusive community. The implementation strategy is detailed in the Welcoming Plan 2018/2019 [Appendix 2] which was endorsed by Council and community in 2018.

i. Council included the Welcoming Communities programme in the Long-Term Plan through to 2027/28 under Goal 3: A connected and safe community with associated programme budget: 1448. The breadth of the Welcoming Communities programme also means that it works across and directly supports the achievement of other Council Plans, including:

· Economic Development

· Active Citizenship

· Community Services and Facilities

· Safe Communities

· Culture and Heritage

· Events and Festivals

· International Relations

In Palmerston North, implementation of our Welcoming Plan 2018/2019 commenced in July 2018, and the response from the community has been positive. It is important to note that we have taken an intentionally broad approach to our welcoming activities, such as the City Welcome Sessions and Welcome Pack development, to ensure that the programme is inclusive of and delivering value for all newcomers to the city, including those moving from within New Zealand.

2.4 Community Engagement

Development and implementation of Welcoming Communities locally has been guided by the Welcoming Communities Advisory Group. Membership of this group includes community groups, not for profits and central government organisations who work with newcomers and/or deliver newcomer services.

Current membership: CEDA, Citizens Advice Bureau, Department of Internal Affairs, English Language Partners, Manawatū Chamber of Commerce, Manawatū Multicultural Council, Network of Skilled Migrants Manawatū, Manawatū Refugee Voice, Red Cross, Immigration New Zealand (MBIE), New Zealand Police.

Having surveyed and discussed the options of accreditation and continuation of the Welcoming Communities programme with the Advisory Group in July 2019, we found they were strongly in favour of ongoing participation and an application for accreditation.

Discussions held with wider community stakeholders and partners, including Te Ahi Kaea (Rangitāne) and the Student Experience Working Group, also indicated support for continuation of the programme and an application for accreditation.

3. Description of options

Option 1. Seek accreditation as a Welcoming Community (Established).

Option 2. Continue Welcoming Communities as business as usual.

Option 3. Stop the Welcoming Communities programme once the pilot ends 30/06/20.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Seek accreditation as a Welcoming Community (Established).

j. Accreditation

k. Accreditation formally recognises that a council and community have met the outcomes in the Welcoming Communities Standard for New Zealand. Welcoming Communities has adopted a staged accreditation model, with increasing requirements for councils to meet at each stage. The four stages are: Committed, Established, Advanced and Excelling. Progression between the stages is optional and self-paced, though any accreditation granted will expire after 3 years. Progression through the stages is incentivised by increasing benefits available such as access to national awards at the Advanced and Excelling stages.

l. To achieve accreditation at the Established, Advanced and Excelling stages, a Council is required to submit evidence of achievement of the requirements of that stage. That evidence is then assessed by an external panel, appointed by INZ. INZ have prepared a range of resources to guide Councils through the accreditation process.

m. Benefits

n. Accreditation as a Welcoming Community has a range of benefits, including:

· demonstrating that a community is intentionally welcoming and inclusive,

· helping to attract and retain newcomers,

· providing a mechanism to assess and reflect on progress over time,

· celebrating success and fostering a shared pride in outcomes for the community,

· showcasing existing and new best practice on a national and international stage,

· providing ongoing access to a network of support, resources and shared learning from INZ and other councils in the welcoming network, both in New Zealand and overseas,

· acknowledging collaboration and partnerships established under Welcoming Communities.

Additional benefits of applying for the Established accreditation during the pilot period include:

· No application fee is required

· Palmerston North is likely to be one of the first Councils in New Zealand to achieve Welcoming Community accreditation, and this could be leveraged for city marketing.

o. The Process

p. Based on an initial self-assessment of the welcoming activities we have implemented to date, Palmerston North would be eligible for Established Welcoming Community accreditation status should an application be submitted in 2019.

q. The accreditation application process has been intentionally designed by INZ to require minimal time from councils to complete. Following this initial accreditation application, the Coordinator will gather and manage supporting evidence in preparation for future applications as an integral aspect of the programme delivery.

r. The Established Welcoming Community accreditation would be valid for three years. Though not a requirement, there is an implicit expectation in applying to be an Established Welcoming Community that the council is also committing to continue as an active member of the programme for that same period. Although also not a requirement, should a council discontinue the programme after being granted the Established status, there would be an expectation that the council also cease leveraging off the accreditation for city marketing. Therefore, in deciding to apply for Established Welcoming Community accreditation, Council needs to consider its ongoing commitment to the programme.

s. MBIE will continue to support all councils participating in the Welcoming Communities programme throughout and following the accreditation process, by facilitating the national Welcoming Communities network including regular communications to coordinators, connecting councils in with the international network, maintaining supporting resources, and provision of one-on-one advice and expertise as required.

4.2 Option 2: Continue Welcoming Communities as business as usual.

t. This option involves continuing to participate as a member of the Welcoming Communities programme and delivering welcoming activities at a near-current level but with no application made for accreditation.

u. MBIE have confirmed that even without an application we would be considered to have achieved the Committed Welcoming Community status based on our existing work and commitments to date. We would be granted this status in late 2019 and receive a certificate of confirmation. We would be accorded some recognition to be gained for our current work, though it would be undervaluing the level of activity that exists.

v. Because of this existing level of activity (i.e. we are already operating at Established level), there would be no discernible difference in terms of Coordinator workload between this option and the first option, aside from the minimal time saving in not having to prepare and submit the accreditation application (20 hrs plus 1 hr a week ongoing).

w. As with option 1, MBIE will continue to support all councils participating in the Welcoming Communities programme, facilitating the national Welcoming Communities network including regular communications to coordinators, connecting councils in with the international network, maintaining supporting resources, and provision of one-on-one advice and expertise as required.

4.3 Option 3: Stop the Welcoming Communities programme once the pilot ends on 30 June 2020.

By choosing to stop the programme on completion of the pilot the Coordinator would no longer be funded and all welcoming activities facilitated, coordinated and delivered by Council would cease or diminish:

· City Welcome Sessions would cease;

· Welcome Packs would stop being distributed and become out of date;

· the Advisory Group would stop meeting and this local welcoming network would cease to exist;

· international student engagement may decrease;

· the Palmy Global Ambassadors programme will be less supported;

· the Palmerston North – City of Cultures Facebook page would become significantly less active;

· less community ‘people’ resources would exist to support Council and community delivering open and inclusive cultural events.

The Coordinator’s role is a leadership role, working across agencies and community groups, to facilitate and coordinate activity that implements Council strategy. There is no community group or stakeholder in Palmerston North that currently has the capacity or capability to pick up the activities above, nor does any group have the coordinating position to lead this work.

As welcoming activities cease or diminish after June 2020, the community may become less intentionally welcoming and inclusive over time, to the detriment of newcomers and therefore to the city’s plans for growth.

Internally, there would likely be a loss of focus on intentional inclusivity, risking plans to create an organisation that leads the sector in terms of embodying cultural intelligence. Council would no longer be at the forefront of inclusivity work, nor a part of national and international welcoming networks.

Council and stakeholders would be unable to leverage off Palmerston North being an accredited Welcoming Community, or participant in the Welcoming Communities programme.

This option may present a reputational risk to Council in that partners who have been involved in this welcoming work to date may feel underappreciated, may express frustration, or may feel burdened or obligated to continue welcoming activities without the capacity and/or capability to do so.

A benefit of this option would be that the budget allocated at $75,000 pa through the LTP would no longer be required.

5. Summary and comparison of options

x.	y. 1: Accreditation as a Welcoming Community (Established).	z. 2: Continue business as usual	3: Stop the Welcoming Community programme once the pilot ends
Costs	· $75k Coordinator 1 FTE (total cost of employment). · $25k Operational budget from 2020/2021. · Total: $100k pa from 2020/2021 – an increase of $25,000 pa to the current budgets in LTP.	· $75k Coordinator 1 FTE (total cost of employment). · $20k Operational budget from 2020/2021. · Total: $95k pa from 2020/2021 – an increase of $25,000 pa to the current budgets in LTP. · Accreditation fee if we later decide to apply for accreditation.	· Saving of $75k pa from LTP budgets. · Re-establishment costs should Council decide to re-join the programme at a later date.
Benefits	· Established Welcoming Community status is an accurate reflection of the work we are doing. · Council and stakeholders will be able to leverage off accreditation for city marketing. · City pride at being one of first formally accredited cities in NZ. · Opportunity to acknowledge community partners for their contributions · Council continues to provide leadership to encourage community to become even more intentionally welcoming and inclusive · Opportunity taken to thoroughly assess the suite of current welcoming activities and establish a platform for further development.	· Welcoming Community (Committed) status would be granted to PNCC. · Opportunity to apply for accreditation at a later date.	· Welcoming activities ongoing up until June 2020 · Council satisfaction at having contributed to the development of the national Welcoming Communities programme · Budget commitments freed up
Risks	· Nil	· Council and community not recognised for the level of work we are doing. · Community partners may feel underappreciated. · Council and stakeholders unable to leverage off being an accredited Established Welcoming Community.	· Welcoming activities cease or diminish after June 2020. · Community becomes less intentionally welcoming and inclusive over time. · Council and community not recognised for the level of work we are doing. · Council and stakeholders unable to leverage off being an accredited Established Welcoming Community. · Reputational risk - community partners are likely to feel frustration from a perceived lack of valuing the work they have contributed to build the programme to date. They may feel burdened to continue welcoming activities themselves.

6. Conclusion

aa. The Welcoming Communities programme is targeted at creating a welcoming community to receive newcomers including migrants, former refugees and international students. There are significant secondary benefits for existing residents, as well as for those relocating to Palmerston North from other parts of New Zealand.

bb. It provides an innovative framework for Council to develop, provide and advocate for services and facilities that create a connected, welcoming and inclusive community and also builds on and supports the City’s commitments to creating an intentionally inclusive City and the many economic benefits.

cc. The programme, as it is being delivered in Palmerston North, is at the leading edge nationally and officers have been heavily involved in the codesign of the accreditation process. The programme’s success has been built through deep and broad relationships across the community and demonstrates what can be achieved when Council develops and actively seeks partnership opportunities. The community participation in this programme and the benefit to the City are such that accreditation as a Welcoming Community (Established) is recommended, as the benefits clearly outweigh the strategic risks should the programme be scaled back or cease.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?	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?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No
For 3 years ending 19/20 MBIE have contributed $50k pa to the Welcoming Community programme 1448. The LTP contains partial funding and needs to be topped up by $25k per annum from Year 3 (20/21) if Council wish to continue the become an accredited Welcoming Community.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Social Wellbeing Forum 2019

Presented By: Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager, Community

APPROVED BY: Debbie Duncan, General Manager - Community

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the memorandum dated 4 July 2019 and the Social Wellbeing Forum 2019 Report be received.

2. That Council endorses the new format with a Social Wellbeing Forum being held every 3^rd year.

1. ISSUE

This is the annual covering memo to accompany the delivery of the 2019 Social Wellbeing Report.

2. BACKGROUND

Palmerston North Community Services Council (PNCSC) is contracted to deliver the Social Wellbeing Forum (SWF) annually and provide a report to council. The SWF is a platform to discuss current Palmerston North social issues and to scope/develop potential issues. This enables Council to clearly understand what the issues are within the City’s voluntary and community sector and to work with the community to plan a positive response. [source Community Support Plan].

In October 2018 Council received the 2018 SWF Report from PNCSC. In doing so, Council resolved:

“That Council work with the Palmerston North Community Services Council to review the format of the 2019 Social Wellbeing Forum, to enable further opportunities for the identification of both issues and solutions.”

3. A new format

Previous forums had essentially surfaced the same issues year after year, so while there was a good understanding of the issues there had never been enough time to develop solutions.

PNCSC have reviewed the format in light of Council’s resolution and developed a three-year cycle to allow adequate time for research, implementation and evaluation of potential solutions that come out of the SWF.

The 2019 forum was Year One in the new cycle and involved a large gathering similar to previous years. Following a brief introduction, focus shifted quickly to workshopping possible solutions to the known issues our community faces. A set of 15 ‘Candidate’ ideas were identified for potential development into pilot projects.

The feedback from attendees of the 2019 Forum was extremely positive and PNCSC have reported significant interest from groups eager to get working on the ‘Candidates’.

In years two and three PNCSC will lead work with the wider community, including council officers, agencies, community groups and interested individuals, to investigate the feasibility of turning some of these ‘Candidates’ into Pilots; which would be run, evaluated and then presented back to the Year 1 conference of the next cycle. Progress on the Pilots will be monitored and publicly communicated through an annual update to council in years 2 and 3.

The Forum is an important networking opportunity for the social sector and PNCSC will ensure that this aspect continues to be recognised by creating annual opportunities for the community sector to meet and engage.

4. next steps

The next step is to work with the community, including agencies, to assess the feasibility of taking each of the 15 ‘Candidates’ forward to be developed as Pilots. The key decision points will be whether:

· its needed (is it worthwhile, what’s the intended outcome?);

· there are people prepared to drive it forward;

· it is practicable to run as a pilot;

· funding can be secured.

Example: Reducing Drug Harm and Addiction

Topic	Reducing Drug Harm and Addiction
Pilot ideas	a) establish a detox home for people to transition into rehabilitation services b) speakers circuit where survivors of drug addictions speak in schools.
Possible Lead Agency	Unison (DHB stakeholder group)
Partners	Narcotics Anonymous, Mana o te Tangata, Legacy Community Centre, MASH, YOSS, Principles Association, SAB – Safety Advisory Board.
Funding	Programme contributions from Ministries of: Health, Justice, Youth, MSD, Education, DHB, et al.

5. Funding and the Local Initiatives Fund

Without knowing which of the Candidates will be taken forward into Pilots we cannot predict funding requirements or which government agencies would be the most appropriate to approach. While some might attract full funding from existing agency budgets others may struggle to secure any funding all. What we do know is that regardless of which ‘Candidates’ are taken to Pilots there will be a requirement for funding. One would hope funding could be accessed from across government given the approach signalled in the Wellbeing Budget and new focus areas.

The Pilots will almost certainly also qualify for Council funding through the Local Initiatives Fund. This is an annual grant scheme to develop new activities and initiatives that can make a real difference in Palmerston North. The fund supports new ideas, particularly those which:

· develop, provide and advocate for services and facilities that create a connected, welcoming and inclusive community,

· ensure the city has a healthy community where everyone has access to healthy, safe and affordable housing and neighbourhoods,

· build community capacity to take ownership and encourage community leadership of solutions, including better coordination between community organisations and groups,

· are aligned with Council's goal of Palmerston North becoming a city where people feel safe and are safe.

Officers will work with PNCSC throughout the 3 yearly cycle as Candidate projects are assessed, funding is sought and Pilots are run and evaluated.

7. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		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?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Community Support Plan The actions are: · Implement the community funding policy; · Work closely with contracted organisations to achieve Council outcomes and identify other opportunities for the organisation and across the sector; · Work in partnership and collaboration with relevant Government agencies (at all levels), other funders and tertiary institutions; · Work collaboratively with funding agencies and community organisations to understand current and emerging issues the voluntary and community sector face.
Contribution to strategic direction	Council seeks to clearly understand what the issues are within the City’s voluntary and community sector and work with the community to plan a positive response. The issues faced by the voluntary sector have been identified year after year at Social Wellbeing Forums. The new format is solutions focussed and will require cross sector collaboration with community groups and government agencies. The Local Initiatives fund is available to support Pilot projects designed to address issues the community and voluntary sector face.

Attachments

Social Wellbeing Forum Report 2019 ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2020 - approval for consultation

PRESENTED BY: Julie Macdonald - Manager Strategy and Policy

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, General Manager - Strategy & Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Community Development Committee

1. That the Statement of Proposal, including the draft Palmerston North Local Alcohol Policy, attached as attachment one to this report, be approved for public consultation.

2. That the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Community Development Committee be authorised to approve minor amendments to the Statement of Proposal prior to public consultation.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 empowers local authorities to develop a local alcohol policy (LAP). The purpose of this policy is to minimise alcohol-related harm by permitting the Council to introduce a limited set of local rules relating to alcohol licensing. Any such policy must be publicly consulted on using the special consultative procedure.
OPTION 1:	Approve the Statement of Proposal including the draft Palmerston North Local Alcohol Policy for public consultation using the special consultative procedure.
Community Views	Police, Public Health and licensees have been notified and informed of the direction of the draft LAP, and some informal feedback has been received. While Police and Public Health have indicated general support for the draft policy, licensees have expressed concerns that the reduction in trading hours may lead to increased alcohol-related harm by forcing patrons to leave licensed premises earlier than normal and leading to increased violence outside premises.
Benefits	The key benefit of this option is it allows a wider set of community views to be heard, and for the draft policy proposals to be rigorously tested and examined by the community at large.
Risks	No particular risks have been identified.
Financial	There are no particular financial implications.
OPTION 2:	Do not approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation
Community Views	Police, Public Health and licensees have been notified and informed of the direction of the draft LAP, and some informal feedback has been received, but there has been no formal engagement thus far.
Benefits	There is no particular benefit to this option.
Risks	If the Committee decides not to consult on the draft LAP and decides not to develop a LAP, there is a risk of a lost opportunity to address alcohol-related harm through the LAP mechanism.
Financial	There are no particular financial implications.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Safe Community Plan The action is: Develop a Local Alcohol Policy (by end of 2020/2021)
Contribution to strategic contribution		The Council has specifically identified the development of a local alcohol policy as an action under the Safe Community Plan. The draft LAP is focussed on minimising the harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol, which contributes to building a city where people feel safe and are safe.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) empowers local authorities to develop a local alcohol policy (LAP). The purpose of this policy is to minimise alcohol-related harm by permitting the Council to introduce a limited set of local rules relating to alcohol licensing.

1.2 The Council is not obliged to adopt a local alcohol policy, but if it decides to do so it must follow a prescribed process. A local alcohol policy is strictly limited to a small number of matters relating to licensing, which are:

· Whether further licences (or licences of a particular kind or kinds) should be issued for premises in the district concerned, or any stated part of the district.

· Maximum trading hours.

· Location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas, by reference to proximity to premises of a particular kind or kinds, or by reference to facilities of a particular kind or kinds.

· One-way door restrictions.

· The issue of licences, or licences of a particular kind or kinds, subject to discretionary conditions.

The policy may not address any matters not relating to licensing.

1.3 In developing a draft LAP, the Council is required by section 78 of the Act to have regard to a number of factors, being:

· The objectives and policies of its district plan.

· The number of licences of each kind held for premises in its district, and the location and opening hours of each of the premises.

· Any areas in which bylaws prohibiting alcohol in public places are in force.

· The demography of the district’s residents and visitors.

· The overall health indicators of the district’s residents.

· The nature and severity of the alcohol-related problems arising in the district.

1.4 To fulfil the Council’s obligations to have regard to these factors, a research report has been produced to inform the development of a draft LAP. This is attached as attachment two.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The Council decided in June 2013 to start developing a draft LAP. An initial Councillor workshop was held in February 2014 which provided Councillors with an overview of the process requirements and outlined a way forward.

2.2 Initial stakeholder engagement started in 2014 with key stakeholders such as Police and the Public Health Unit of MidCentral DHB (Public Health). Officers also engaged with licence holders through the Liquor Liaison Group meetings. A community forum was held in May 2015 to initiate wider community engagement on the development of the LAP. Approximately 80 people attended the forum at the Palmerston North Conference Centre, representing a range of organisations and interests that included licence holders, Hospitality Association, Police, Public Health, Rangitāne o Manawatū, Palmerston North Youth Council, alcohol and drug counsellors, community support groups, and members of the public. The forum provided an information session on the requirements for the development of a local alcohol policy, with perspectives from the Health Promotion Agency, Hospitality Association, and a guest speaker from Auckland Council. A group panel session described a “typical Saturday night” in Palmerston North from five different perspectives (Police, licensee, Safe City ‘Angel, Emergency Department nurse, and Safe City Trust), with questions and answers for the audience. Two interactive sessions were held – brainstorming three issues arising from the panel session, and a “policy stations” exercise where participants could contribute what they thought should be included in each of the five potential areas of the policy.

2.3 A further Councillor workshop was held in October 2015 which presented an update on progress to date, including the findings of the community forum and identified the gaps in the information collected thus far. Work continued throughout 2015 and 2016 to identify and collate relevant information that would support the development of a LAP. This information is contained in the Local Alcohol Policy Research Report attached as attachment two this report.

2.4 A further workshop was held with Councillors in February 2017 which outlined the information collected and identified an indicative policy direction for discussion. Following this, officers continued to analyse the information and data that had been collected and organised meetings with stakeholders to discuss the draft policy direction. The feedback from those meetings was incorporated in the draft LAP that was approved for public consultation in 2017.

2.5 Updates were also provided to Rangitāne o Manawatū through the scheduled bi-monthly meetings, which offered another opportunity to discuss the process, the evidence collected, and the draft policy proposals.

2.6 In June 2017 the Council approved a draft LAP for public consultation. That consultation occurred between July and August. The Council received 45 written submissions and heard oral submissions from 17 people in September 2017.

2.7 The Council agreed in December 2017 to suspend the development of the LAP, in response to an issue that arose through the consultation process. It emerged that the draft LAP would disproportionately affect some businesses more than others, because the District Plan contained trading hours for activities involving the sale of alcohol. The LAP may contain conditions that are more restrictive than the District Plan, but it is not able to authorise anything which the District Plan forbids. The Council would have been forced to either continue with the draft LAP (and dramatically affect the maximum trading hours of some businesses) or amend the District Plan to remove the provisions setting trading hours (and thus remove the conflict with the District Plan). The Council chose to amend the District Plan through Plan Change A, which was completed in December 2018.

2.8 In 2019, officers recommenced work on the draft LAP. The draft 2017 LAP was used as the basis, and the existing Research Report was updated wherever possible with the most current information. Revisions have been made to the draft LAP to achieve the same objectives as the draft 2017 LAP.

3. Description of options

3.1 The first option is to approve the Statement of Proposal including the draft Palmerston North Local Alcohol Policy for public consultation using the special consultative procedure.

3.2 The second option is to not approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation. This option may be used to either direct officers to re-work the current draft, or to suspend or cease work on the development of the LAP.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 All policy development carries with it an expectation of being supported by high-quality evidence. For a local alcohol policy, the evidence must also be directly relevant to the area to which it applies. Therefore, the emphasis has been on identifying data and evidence of alcohol-related harm from within Palmerston North, rather than relying on more general research about alcohol-related harm. However, because of a paucity of reliable and relevant data for Palmerston North, the scope of the proposed LAP has been limited to those areas where a strong argument can be made, supported by quality local evidence.

4.2 Before turning to the two key options (to approve or reject the Statement of Proposal for public consultation), this report will provide a breakdown and analysis of the key components of the draft LAP.

Whether further licences should be issued

4.3 In considering this aspect of the policy, a recommendation ultimately amounts to a choice between setting a sinking lid or cap on all or some licence types, for all or part of the city, or not imposing any limits on the number of new licences that can be issued.

4.4 The draft LAP does not propose to cap the number of new licences that can be issued. There are two key reasons for this:

4.4.1 Firstly, there has been minimal growth in the number of licences held within Palmerston North over the past two years. In 2017 there were 183 active licences, and in 2019 there are 185 active licences. Prior to 2017, there was a similar level of low growth. This suggests there is little capacity for rapid growth or expansion of licensed premises.

4.4.2 Secondly, a cap on the number of licences could have unintended consequences. There is a potential for a rush of new licence applications before the policy is adopted, to get in ahead of any cap. This could lead to the kind of growth in active licences that such a cap is intended to limit.

Maximum trading hours

4.5 The default national maximum trading hours are 8am to 4am for on-licensed and club licensed premises, and 7am to 11pm for off-licensed premises. The draft LAP proposes to introduce shorter maximum trading hours for Palmerston North:

	Location	Hours
On-licence premises (e.g. bars, pubs, taverns, cafes, restaurants)	Inner, outer, fringe and local business zones, and industrial zone	8am to 2am the following day
	Any other zone	8am to 12am the following day
Off-licence premises (e.g. bottle stores, supermarkets, grocery stores)	All zones	7am to 10pm
Club licence premises (e.g. RSAs, sports clubs)	All zones	8am to 12am the following day

4.6 The rationale for the proposed trading hours stems from the intention to address the impact of pre-loading behaviour on alcohol-related harm. By reducing trading hours for all licence types, it is expected that people who pre-load at home will spend less time pre-loading before coming into town and going into licensed premises.

4.7 Research by ACC for the Safety Advisory Board on pre-loading behaviour shows the time of the day that people who preload begin drinking at home, when they finish drinking at home, and when they come into town. This information creates an argument for reducing trading hours for both on- and off-licensed premises. The presumption is that if the time which people spend drinking in a home environment (pre-loading) without a “capable guardian” can be reduced, then alcohol-related harm, especially residential assaults, could be reduced. This is because those people are encouraged to come into town earlier where, if they do drink, they are doing so in a supervised environment such as an on-licensed premises. For this to hold, however, the maximum trading hours for all licence types would need to be reduced proportionally.

4.8 The specific impacts of these proposed hours have been estimated for different licence types and business types, based on their licensed (maximum) trading hours. The impacts vary on the day of the week; the table below shows the greatest impact throughout the week:

	On-licensed premises (122)	Off-licensed premises (38)	Club licensed premises (25)
Unaffected	94	30	20
Lose up to one hour of trading	25	8	6
Lose more than one hour of trading	3	None	1

4.9 Overall, the impact is a proportional reduction of an hour for most licences. It is expected that this should lessen the impact of pre-loading, and lead to a reduction in alcohol-related harm.

Restrictions on location

4.10 Consideration was given to two possible types of location restriction, but these are not recommended. The two types of location restriction considered were:

4.10.1 A restriction on any new bottle store being located in areas with a deprivation (NZDep2013) score of 8, 9, or 10.

4.10.2 A restriction on any new off-licensed premises being located within 100m of an existing off-licensed premises.

4.11 Analysis of the location of existing licensed premises by deprivation score showed a disproportionately high number of bottle stores located in high deprivation areas. This analysis excluded the PN Central census area unit (CAU), which broadly aligns with the CBD, because the commercial character of the CBD makes an unfair comparison with other CAUs which have a more residential or suburban character. Based on this analysis, officers found that though only 9% of cafes or restaurants, and only 25% of bars or taverns, were located in high deprivation areas, 75% of bottle stores were located in high deprivation areas.

4.12 Further analysis of the location of existing licensed premises shows that 12 of the 38 off licences are clustered in five locations (excluding the CBD). There are 21 on-licenses clustered in eight locations (excluding the CBD). This location analysis shows that off-licensed premises are nearly twice as likely to cluster or create a potential nexus of alcohol availability. The concern that this creates is a potential for price competition amongst premises in close proximity to each other.

4.13 Despite these justifications, there are a number of valid counter-arguments:

4.13.1 No evidence was identified which showed a strong relationship between bottle stores located in high deprivation areas and alcohol-related harm, more than a bottle store in any other part of the city. While some people may point to a general undesirability of bottle stores in high deprivation areas, officers were unable to identify evidence which showed a direct increase in alcohol-related harm.

4.13.2 Additionally, while bottle stores were disproportionately located in high deprivation areas when compared to other business types, officers were unable to identify evidence that suggested that bottle stores were inherently more likely to generate alcohol-related harm than other types of licensed premises.

4.13.3 The compact geography of the City makes any location restrictions, and the general association between outlets and alcohol-related harm, difficult to support. Based on the current number and location of licensed premises, most of the City is within 15 minutes’ walk or five minutes’ drive of an on- or off-licensed premises. It becomes difficult to argue in support of restricting the location of premises, either by reference to deprivation or by reference to other licensed premises, if it remains possible to easily access other existing licensed premises either by vehicle or on foot.

4.13.4 Based on the evidence collected, and the counter-arguments presented, officers have not recommended including these possible location restrictions in the draft LAP.

4.14 Consideration was also given to whether there was an argument for restricting licensed premises in close proximity to education facilities. There are 10 locations where an on-licensed premises is within 100m of a school. Of those 10 locations, three included a bar or tavern, the rest were cafes or restaurants. There are 11 locations where an off-licensed premises is within 100m of a school. Of those 11 locations, five are grocery stores, four are supermarkets, and three are bottle stores. However, none of these examples suggested a particularly strong association between the location of the licensed premises and alcohol-related harm, and no evidence was found to suggest that those locations were causing a disproportionately high level of alcohol-related harm.

One-way door restrictions

4.15 The draft LAP does not propose any one-way door restrictions. However, consideration was given to the following possible restrictions:

4.15.1 A mandatory 30 minute one-way door restriction for all on-licensed premises within the CBD which operate after midnight.

4.15.2 An optional 30 minute one-way door restriction for all on-licensed premises within the CBD which operate after midnight (set as a discretionary condition).

4.16 The justification for considering these possible restrictions is such a one-way door restriction would apply to those premises on which it would have the greatest impact – on-licensed premises operating past midnight, and within the CBD where on-licensed premises (especially bars and taverns) tend to concentrate and where the greatest number of patrons congregate. Limiting it to premises operating past midnight would avoid applying the restrictions to premises not operating at late hours (such as cafes).

4.17 It is worth noting that some premises operate a voluntary one-way door restriction. However, this can create an inconsistent outcome where patrons unable to enter one premises because of the one-way door restriction can usually enter nearby premises without difficulty. This could create a justification for a mandatory one-way door restriction, to avoid allowing patrons to migrate from one premises to another.

4.18 Despite these justifications, officers have not recommended the inclusion of one-way door restrictions in the draft LAP for the following reasons:

4.18.1 Given the decision to propose reduced maximum trading hours, there is a potential for a one-way door restriction to amplify the effects of those reduced trading hours. The overarching intention of the policy is to discourage pre-loading and encourage people who choose to drink to do so in supervised premises such as on-licences. However, the combination of reduced trading hours and a one-way door policy could create a perverse outcome, whereby the time available for people to enter on-licensed premises is so small that they choose not to come to town at all. If they choose instead to continue drinking at home, then this could lead to increased alcohol-related violence, rather than encouraging them to drink in licensed premises.

4.18.2 Including a one-way door restriction as a discretionary condition retains the potential benefits of such a policy, by allowing the District Licensing Committee (DLC) to choose to impose such a restriction where appropriate. However, it is not necessary to include it as a discretionary condition for the DLC to apply it to a licence on application or renewal. The DLC retains the ability to impose a one-way door restriction as a condition regardless of whether it is in the draft LAP, and therefore it makes sense to exclude it and keep the draft LAP as simple as possible (see paragraph 4.19 below).

Discretionary conditions

4.19 The draft LAP does not propose any discretionary conditions. The key reason for this is that, by their very nature, they cannot be made mandatory. There is little benefit to be found by including a list of conditions that the DLC can choose from when considering whether to impose conditions on a licence it is granting. Furthermore, section 117 of the Act empowers the DLC to “issue any licence subject to any reasonable conditions not inconsistent with this Act.” Therefore, any list of discretionary conditions contained in the draft LAP would not improve the existing power of the DLC to use conditions on licences to minimise the potential for alcohol-related harm.

Approve or reject the Statement of Proposal for public consultation

4.20 The options presented in this report are to either approve or reject the Statement of Proposal for public consultation.

4.21 Officers have no basis for recommending option two. The standing direction from Councillors is to develop a draft Local Alcohol Policy, and the next logical step is to proceed to public consultation. However, if Councillors are not satisfied with the current draft LAP, but wish to continue developing a LAP, then option two would allow for that draft LAP to be revised or refined.

4.22 Broad community engagement on the draft LAP would allow for a wide set of views to be heard. A robust community engagement process also allows for the proposals and the arguments to be more rigorously tested. This supports option one, to approve the draft LAP for public consultation.

4.23 Neither option contains any particularly risk, though if the Council chooses option two and decides not to develop a LAP there is a risk that alcohol-related harm may not be addressed through the means available. By approving the draft LAP for public consultation, and continuing the process towards adoption, Council will be better positioned to adopt a policy that may reduce alcohol-related harm.

4.24 There are no particular financial implications to either option. If Councillors choose option one, then public consultation will occur and this will be met within current budget.

4.25 Progressing the draft LAP through public consultation is consistent with Council’s strategic direction, which identified the development of a local alcohol policy in the Safe Community Plan. A Local Alcohol Policy contributes to Goal 3: a connected and safe community by minimising alcohol-related harm.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The process of developing the draft LAP has involved work over many years, collating and analysing a diverse range of information and evidence, together with ongoing engagement with many different parties. The draft LAP presented here for approval for consultation represents the outcome of that work.

5.2 The draft LAP has been carefully written to reflect proposals that are supported by strong arguments and information.

5.3 Option one (approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation) is the recommended option because it allows a wide set of views to be identified and provides a rigorous test of the draft policy proposals. This is the key benefit, and there are no particular risks with taking this approach. There are no particular financial implications with this option, as the costs of consultation can be met within current budgets.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Committee approves the Statement of Proposal then officers will initiate a comprehensive community engagement process. This is discussed in more detail in section 7 below.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The Council is required to use the special consultative procedure when consulting on the draft LAP. However, officers recommend that a more comprehensive community engagement process is used to ensure the best possible engagement with the community.

7.2 The Statement of Proposal, including the draft LAP, will be published and made available as a printed document at all of Council’s ordinary information points – Customer Services Centre, and the central and community libraries – and as a document on the Council’s website. A submission form will also be supplied. Notification of the public consultation process will be via public notice in the Manwatū Standard and in the Guardian community newspaper, together with a media release, and posts on social media platforms.

7.3 As required by the special consultative procedure, people will be given an opportunity to make a written submission. Hearings will also be scheduled for those people who also wish to make an oral submission.

7.4 In addition to these steps, officers will also contact directly all those people who were contacted when the draft LAP was consulted on in 2017. This includes:

· Police

· Public Health

· Rangitāne o Manawatū

· Licence holders

· Hospitality NZ

· Progressive Enterprises and Foodstuffs (as parent companies for many supermarket chains represented in Palmerston North)

· Retail NZ

· Other groups and organisations with an interest in alcohol issues (including Youth Council, ACC, Fire and Emergency NZ, Linton Camp, Street Van, Salvation Army, CEDA, Safety Advisory Board, Neighbourhood Support, church groups, MASH Trust, Te Aroha Noa, MAIN, Roslyn REACH, Safe City Trust, Maori Wardens, alcohol and drug counsellors, Best Care Whakapai Hauora, tertiary education providers and student associations, Second School Principals Association, Youth One Stop Shop, Restaurant Association).

7.5 In addition to being contacted directly and provided with a copy of the proposal these stakeholders will also be invited to attend one of a series of community drop-in sessions to discuss the draft LAP. Alternatively, they will be given the opportunity to have Council officers attend a meeting of their group or organisation to discuss the proposals.

7.6 A social media engagement plan will be developed, providing people with an additional channel of communication, and an opportunity to discuss the issues.

7.7 It is expected that community engagement will start in November and will run for approximately six weeks. This will allow enough time for the different community engagement methods to be delivered, and for people to prepare any written submission they may wish to make. Hearings for oral submissions will be scheduled for the first available meeting in 2020 of the appropriate committee (as the structure and dates of committees will not be known until after the election in October). Deliberations on those submissions, along with officer recommendations on those submissions and any changes to be made to the draft LAP as a result of the consultation process, will be scheduled for a subsequent committee meeting. It is at that meeting that the Committee may choose to adopt the draft LAP as a “Provisional” LAP.

7.8 Once a Provisional LAP has been adopted, Council is required to give public notice of the appeals process, which must run for a minimum of one month. Appeals are made to the Alcohol and Regulatory Licensing Authority (ARLA). If no appeals are received then the Council can adopt the Provisional LAP as a Final LAP. If appears are received, then the process and timeframe for hearing and resolving those appears will be determined by ARLA.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual. Clause 168	Yes
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?	Yes
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

1.	Statement of Proposal - Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2020 ⇩
2.	Local Alcohol Policy Research Report August 2019 ⇩

Aleisha Rutherford (Chairperson)
Rachel Bowen (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Susan Baty	Lorna Johnson
Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke	Duncan McCann
Lew Findlay QSM	Karen Naylor
Leonie Hapeta	Tangi Utikere