Agenda of Community Development Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Community Development Committee MEETING

5 August 2020

Order of Business

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

- Community Development Committee

- Infrastructure 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 - Enable New Zealand Page 7

6. Deputation - English Language Partners New Zealand Page 9

7. Confirmation of Minutes Page 11

“That the minutes of the Community Development Committee meeting of 1 July 2020 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

8. COVID-19 Relief Fund Guidelines Page 17

Memorandum, presented by Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

9. 2019/2020 Summary of Celebrating Communities and Local Initiatives Fund Page 27

Memorandum, presented by Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

10. Community Development Small Grants - Allocations for 2020/2021 Page 31

Memorandum, presented by Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

11. Safety Advisory Board Strategic Plan Page 37

Memorandum, presented by Patrick Handcock, Chair of the Safety Advisory Board and Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

12. Feasibility of introducing a companion card for those with permanent disabilities Page 45

Report, presented by Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

13. Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion - Tenant Lounge Option Analysis Page 55

Memorandum, presented by Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property and Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager - Parks and Reserves.

14. Draft Local Alcohol Policy - Deliberations on Submissions Page 63

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

15. Committee Work Schedule Page 125

16. 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.

[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 Elwood Room, Conference & Function Centre, 354 Main Street, Palmerston North on 1 July 2020, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Lorna Johnson (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford, and Danielle Harris (Rangitāne representative).

Non Members:

Councillor Vaughan Dennison.

Apologies:

Councillors Lew Findlay QSM and Tangi Utikere.

NOTE: Prior to the commencement of the meeting, Danielle Harris made a Declaration of Office.

	Declaration of Interest
	Danielle Harris advised she is a member of PN Housing Committee and Te Rangi Maro Housing Trust.

15-20

Apologies

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 15-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lorna Johnson, Rachel Bowen, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford, Vaughan Dennison, and Danielle Harris.

16-20

Deputation - Horizons Regional Council

Chair Rachel Keedwell of Horizons Regional Council made a deputation regarding the upcoming launch of the new Bee Card, which would replace the Go Card for transport by bus. Horizons had been working with eight other regional Councils on this project (Northland, Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Hawkes Bay, Taranaki, Nelson, Otago and Invercargill) and the Bee Card could be used across these regions.

The Bee Card would offer features such as online registration and top-up, transfer of balances between multiple cards, automatic top-up, etc. It would operate as a ‘tag on, tag off’ system, meaning quicker boarding for passengers. Horizons would be able to collect data to ensure the service was the best it could be.

Staged rollout would commence on 20 July; free bus services commenced over the lockdown period and extended until this date would end. Customers would still be able to use cash from 20 July, but the fare would be cheaper if using a Bee Card (a flat fare of $1.20 per trip). Student and Super Gold Cards could still be used until these are integrated during a subsequent phase. The full fare structure would be reinstated at a later date.

Bee Cards were available now on buses, at libraries, the Palmerston North City Council office and iSite. During the transition period cards would be free; ultimately there would be a purchase cost.

Ms Keedwell asked if Elected Members were willing to be an ‘ambusador’ on 20 July, to show people how to use the new system. Training would be provided.

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 16-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

17-20	Deputation - Papaioea Housing Development Ms Judy Groom, a resident of the Papaioea Housing Development, made a deputation on behalf of a group of tenants who felt the complex would be greatly enhanced with the addition of a community centre. The complex housed a diverse group of people and it was felt somewhere to meet would encourage learning and socialising, as well as being beneficial for the mental wellbeing of residents, particularly those who are elderly. During discussion it was suggested that the Papaioea Park cricket pavilion could, with minimal alterations, be used by residents as a place to socialise. Currently the pavilion was used only to store cricket equipment and occasionally for drinks after a cricket match. Elected Members requested Officers to explore this option and report back to the next Community Development Committee meeting.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Community Development Committee receive the deputation for information.
	Clause 17.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lorna Johnson, Rachel Bowen, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford, Vaughan Dennison, and Danielle Harris.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Grant Smith. 2. That the Chief Executive investigate the Papaioea Park cricket pavilion for use by the Papaioea Place residents as a community space, and that this be reported back to the next Community Development Committee meeting.
	Clause 17.2 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lorna Johnson, Rachel Bowen, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford, Vaughan Dennison, and Danielle Harris.

18-20

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the extraordinary Community Development Committee meeting of 25 February 2020 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 18-20 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lorna Johnson, Rachel Bowen, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Vaughan Dennison.

Abstained:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta and Danielle Harris.

19-20

Effectiveness of Council's Youth Engagement

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy and Governance Manager.

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the report entitled “Effectiveness of Council’s Youth Engagement” to the Community Development Committee of 1 July 2020 be received.

2. That Youth Council be invited to present to the Community Development Committee at least annually.

Clause 19-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

20-20	Report on City-Wide Mobility Parking Signage Upgrade Memorandum, presented by Robert van Bentum, Manager - Transport and Infrastructure. After discussion Elected Members requested that the cost of achieving mobility parking compliance after hours be investigated, to enable a greater level of participation in the community for those with disabilities. It was noted that this would be a big change to the level of service around parking enforcement. The meeting adjourned at 10.45am The meeting resumed at 11.02am
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the memorandum entitled “Report on City-Wide Mobility Parking Signage Upgrade” presented to the Community Development Committee on 1 July 2020, be received.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Leonie Hapeta. 2. That a report is presented to November 2020 Community Development Committee outlining the cost of achieving mobility parking compliance outside of current hours.
	Clause 20-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lorna Johnson, Rachel Bowen, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford, Vaughan Dennison, and Danielle Harris.

21-20	Health & Wellbeing Portfolio Update (June) Memorandum, presented by Councillor Billy Meehan. It was noted that Health and Wellbeing forms part of the Te Ara Whanau Ora process, which included outcomes that are applicable to the whole community. Elected Members therefore agreed that the name of the portfolio be changed to read “Whanau Ora, Health & Wellbeing Portfolio”.
	Moved Billy Meehan, seconded Leonie Hapeta. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Health & Wellbeing Portfolio update report for June 2020 be received for information.
	Moved Danielle Harris, seconded Billy Meehan. 2. That the name of the Health & Wellbeing Portfolio be changed to the “Whanau Ora, Health & Wellbeing Portfolio”.
	Clause 21-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lorna Johnson, Rachel Bowen, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford, Vaughan Dennison, and Danielle Harris.

22-20

Neighbourhoods, Villages & Rural Portfolio Update (June)

Memorandum, presented by Councillor Bruno Petrenas.

Moved Bruno Petrenas, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Neighbourhoods, Villages & Rural Portfolio update report for June 2020 be received for information.

Clause 22-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

23-20

Safe City Portfolio Update (June)

Memorandum, presented by Councillor Patrick Handcock.

Moved Patrick Handcock ONZM, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Safe City Portfolio update report for June 2020 be received for information.

Clause 23-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

24-20

People and Community Portfolio Update (January - June 2020)

Memorandum, presented by Councillor Lorna Johnson.

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the People and Community Portfolio update report for January – June 2020 be received for information.

Clause 24-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

25-20

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Community Development Committee receive its Work Schedule dated July 2020.

Clause 25-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 11.24am

Confirmed 5 August 2020

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2020

TITLE: COVID-19 Relief Fund Guidelines

Presented By: Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the draft guidelines for the COVID-19 Relief Fund, as appended to the report entitled “COVID-19 Relief Fund Guidelines”, presented to the Community Development Committee meeting on 5 August 2020, be approved.

2. That, as a result of implementing the fund, if there is a need to make any significant changes to the guidelines, this will be brought back to Council for approval.

1. ISSUE

1.1 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, PNCC has established a one off $200,000 relief fund to provide support to community organisations who have been impacted by COVID-19. This paper addresses the rationale behind the development of the guidelines for the COVID-19 Relief Fund.

1.2 There is uncertainty about how COVID-19 will affect our community over the coming months. Providing access to relief funding will help ensure that the community organisations who provide services that are vital to our city’s wellbeing are able to continue to operate.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 25 March 2020 New Zealand entered lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. People were required to stay home and were unable to leave their house to work unless they were an essential worker or provided an essential service. This impacted community organisations in several ways:

· staff and volunteers could not attend work with the organisation due to lockdown or vulnerability e.g. age, health,

· an increase in demand for their services due to people who lost jobs or had their income reduced,

· an increase in costs in order to work remotely e.g. technology.

2.2 Some community organisations, such as food banks and essential housing organisations, were able to continue their work with the community. However, there were other community organisations who were unable to operate, hold key fundraising events or provide services during this period. This has had an impact on community groups and their income levels.

3. assumptions

3.1 This relief fund aims to support community organisations who have been impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic in two key areas:

· An increase in demand for their services due to COVID-19;

· A loss or decrease in income due to COVID-19.

For clarity, this fund is for extraordinary circumstances due to COVID-19, not for usual, normal or ongoing operations and activity.

3.2 Community organisations are defined in Council’s Community Funding Policy 2018 as:

“Not for-profit, charitable and voluntary organisations operating in Palmerston North for Palmerston North residents. These groups are often referred to collectively as ‘community organisations’ because they are established with the primary purpose of providing a benefit to the wider community”.

For clarity, this means that groups from all sectors are eligible to apply including arts, sports, environmental and social.

3.3 The fund aims to be a rapid response fund, without undue hurdles, to provide financial relief to groups who need it. Decision makers will work alongside applicants to ensure quick decisions and timely payments.

3.4 The fund will make grants based on evidence that a) demonstrates the impact of COVID-19 on organisations and b) helps forecast future demand for services.

4. Guidelines - Discussion of Options

There were a number of options to consider when drafting the Relief Fund Guidelines. Below is a summary of how those choices were made for each of the key recommended guidelines.

Pros 4.1 Funding rounds

Fixed funding rounds with open and close dates		Open all year until the fund is exhausted.
	· Enables groups to be assessed all at one time in a comparative matter.	· A reactive response. · Ensures funding is available when it is needed.
	· Would mean groups who missed deadlines, or who subsequently experience a surge in demand may miss out on funding when they need it.	· Some groups may miss out on funding due to a high application rate early in the year which exhausts the fund.
Recommendation: Open until the funding is exhausted. Rationale: This is a relief fund in response to a pandemic and we do not yet know how the year will play out and thus what demands will be made on groups, particularly in the social welfare space. The fund needs to be reactive to the changing needs of community groups.

Pros 4.2 Number of Applications

One application		Multiple applications
	· Time saving for groups who make one application only. · Selection panel can assess all applications at once and make 1 payment to successful applicants.	· Demand driven and responsive. · Reduces the risk to the organisation if it experiences unforeseen demand for services. · Encourages reasonable forecasting as the risk of getting it wrong is eliminated; can seek a variation as soon as it is noticed. · Rapid decision-making process as applications can be assessed as they are received.
	· Decision making takes longer as it is done in a batch. · Less risk of over or under forecasting future demand for a 3 month period.	· Duplication of effort submitting and assessing applications.
	Recommendation: Can submit multiple applications over the year. Rationale: Reduces risk to organisations who will be penalised if they under-forecast demand for services or underestimate the impact of COVID-19 on their finances. Also reduces risk to Council of over-funding groups expecting worse outcomes than eventuate. Officers will work closely with the organisations and develop a simple process for subsequent applications which will essentially be looking at evidence.

Pros 4.3 Funding cap

A set funding cap e.g.: $5,000		Uncapped funding
	· Spreading it thinly over a wider pool would mean more groups could access the fund.	· Larger organisations who experience heavier demand need more financial operating funds than smaller groups.
Cons	· Penalises groups who experience heavy demand for their services.	· Fewer community organisations may get relief if the fund exhausted early by larger organisations who experience heavier demand, earlier.
Recommendation: Uncapped funding. Rationale: This a relief fund. If the evidence shows increased demand for services, then the funding should follow where it is most needed.

4.4 Who makes the decision?

A 3^rd party organisation or external members on a funding panel		Internal allocation team of officers
Pros	· People working on the ground make the decisions.	· Quick turnaround. · Neutral. · Decision process well established. · Carry responsibility for unsuccessful applications.
Cons	· Training required. · Would cost an administration fee which would reduce the funds available. · Scheduling meetings can be difficult. · Slower response. · Manage conflicts of interest.
Recommendation: Internal allocation team of officers. Rationale: Officers are experienced, administering a number of funds already through transparent processes, which are well established. They are also experienced at managing any fallout from groups whose applications may be rejected.

4.5 Eligible expenses

As per the Community Funding Policy (2018)		Limited scope
Pros	· Wide scope allows for unexpected but legitimate expenses to be eligible.	· There is a risk in too limited a scope as we don’t know how things will develop and what ‘surprising’ expenses may be considered essential.
Cons	· Eligible expenses include BAU costs including wages, rent, artists fees etc. · Retrospective costs are excluded e.g. technology expenses adapting to COVID-19.	· Ruling wages and other staff expenses as ineligible may limit groups who experience unprecedented demand for their services and need to scale up to respond. · Groups who have lost income may not be able to make rent payments, or may have to dismiss staff because they are unable to pay them.
Recommendation: Broadly the Community Funding Policy (2018) but decision makers will prioritise and make judgement calls. Rationale: The objective of this fund is to provide emergency relief due to the impact of COVID-19 on the community sector. It is just too early to predict what that impact may be. Keeping the eligibility criteria quite broad allows room to be responsive. We have to trust the allocation panel to make sound and reasonable decisions based on the evidence that is produced and their knowledge of the groups contribution to community wellbeing.

6. NEXT STEPS

If the proposed guidelines are approved by the Community Development Committee the following steps will occur:

· An online application form for a grant from the Relief Fund will be developed and advertised to Palmerston North community groups by the 20^th August.

· An allocation panel will be established and briefed on the funding criteria for this fund.

· Applications will be considered within 5 business days, applicants notified, and payments processed in the next weekly payment run.

· Officers will provide ongoing support to groups applying for this fund.

· An accountability process will be established to ensure the grants were made appropriately.

· Report successful recipients of funding to Council and on the Council website.

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?		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: Broadens Council’s community support focus to include building community, neighbourhood and organisational resilience, capacity and capability.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The creation of a COVID-19 Relief Fund is an initiative included the COVID-19 Recovery Plan and was funded in the 2020/2021 Budget.

Attachments

Draft COVID-19 Relief Fund Criteria. ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2020

TITLE: 2019/2020 Summary of Celebrating Communities and Local Initiatives Fund

Presented By: Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Community Development Committee

1. That the memorandum entitled “2019/2020 Summary of Celebrating Communities Fund and the Local Initiatives Fund” presented to the Community Development Committee on 5 August 2020, be received.

1. ISSUE

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update on how Council funding was distributed for the Celebrating Communities Fund and the Local Initiatives Fund for the 2019/2020 financial year.

2. BACKGROUND

Each year the Celebrating Communities Fund (CCF) and the Local Initiatives Fund (LIF) grants are delivered in accordance to the Community Funding Policy (2018). The budgets for the 2019/2020 financial year were:

Grant	Amount
Local Initiatives Fund	$28,909.00
Celebrating Communities Fund	$102,305.00

3. allocation

3.1 Celebrating Communities Fund:

The purpose of CCF is to support events in Palmerston North that help communities to celebrate their strengths and share them with the communities. Communities can be geographic communities or communities of interest.

26 successful applicants received grants and to date we have received 18 acquittal reports. 20,065 people attended those 18 events at an average cost per head of $3.17.

Successful Applicant	Event	Amount
Manawatu Multicultural Council	Eid Multicultural Festival fun day	$2,000.00
Rotaract Club of Massey University	Diwali Night - Festival of Lights	$2,250.00
Palmerston North Chinese School	Chinese Mid-Autumn Festival and Chinese Language Week 2019	$5,900.00
LUCK Trust	Whānau Fun Day 2019	$4,590.00
Manawatu Horowhenua Māori Teachers Inc.	National Ngā Manu Kōrero Speech Competition 2019	$10,000.00
Age Concern Palmerston North and Districts	International Day of Older Person, Afternoon Tea Dance	$1,300.00
Manawatu Freshwater Anglers Club Incorporated	Manawatu Family Fishing day	$1,400.00
Bhutanese Society of New Zealand Inc.	Grand International Creative Ceremony	$6,219.75
The Samoan Methodist Churches of Samoa (Palmerston North Parish) in New Zealand	Samoan Methodist 50th Weekend History celebration event	$2,500.00
Awesome Awapuni Group	Awesome Awapuni	$1,862.00
Roslyn Education and Community Health Group (REACH)	REACH Wacky Water Day	$5,000.00
Te Aroha Noa Community Services	Christmas in Farnham Park	$6,000.00
City Mission Palmerston North	Christmas in the City	$2,500.00
Manawatu Chinese Association	Lunar New Year Festival	$1,500.00
NZ Karen Association – PN	Karen New Year Celebration	$2,000.00
Alliance Francaise Palmerston North Incorporated	Fête de la Musique 2020	$4,500.00
Community Connections	Teddy Bears Picnic	$990.00
Manawatu Multicultural Council	Celebration of Ethnic Songs & Praises	$1,930.00
Manawatu Tuvalu Community	Tuvalu Independence Day Celebrations	$4,500.00
Ngā Hiere a Highbury	Ngā Hiere o Highbury Photo Voice Exhibition	$2,534.90
Alzheimers Society Manawatu Inc.	Memory Walk Palmerston North	$2,235.50
Niue Palmerston North Community	Language week and National independence celebrations	$2,800.00
Palmerston North Fijian Community	Fiji Independence Day Celebrations	$3,500.00
Manawatu Multicultural Council	South African Cultural Day	$2,000.00
Manawatu Multicultural Council	Eid Multicultural Festival Fun Day	$2,000.00
Manawatu Rangitikei Rural Support Trust	The Pride in our Land 2020 Muster	$5,250.00
Total:		$87,262.15

3.2 Local Initiatives Fund:

The purpose of this fund is to provide an opportunity for new initiatives to develop, after which time the initiative should be in a position where the organisation should seek long term funding elsewhere. The initiative must be unique, innovative and address an issue or community of concern in Palmerston North.

We received 11 applications to this grant, but none were successful and thus no grants were made from this fund in 2019/2020.

4. 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?	No
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 action is: To implement the Community Funding Policy.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2020

TITLE: Community Development Small Grants - Allocations for 2020/2021

Presented By: Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Community Development Committee

1. That the report entitled “Community Development Small Grants – Allocations for 2020/21” presented to the Community Development Committee on 5 August 2020, be received for information.

2. That the Community Services Council be acknowledged for their assistance in administering this fund.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Council contracts the Palmerston North Community Services Council (CSC) to allocate and distribute the PNCC Community Development Small Grants Fund. This fund is budgeted within the City Council’s 10 Year Plan and is CPI adjusted annually.

1.2 Council’s Community Funding Policy 2018 requires that the funding allocations be reported to Council and published on Council’s website. Community organisations have been paid their grants.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The purpose of this fund is to provide funding for essential administration expenses to enable local not-for-profit community groups to operate.

2.2 Organisations seeking funding must contribute to at least one of the goals and priorities of the following Council strategies:

· Creative and Liveable Strategy (to achieve Goal 2: A creative and exciting city);

· Connected Community Strategy (to achieve Goal 3: To be a connected and safe community);

· Eco City Strategy (supporting Goal 4: An eco city).

3. addressing issues raised during the 2018/2019 round.

3.1 In September 2019 the allocations for 2018/2019 were reported to Council and Elected Members raised concerns that needed to be addressed in 2019/2020. These were:

· Proactively seeking applications from the environment and art sectors as well as the social sector;

· Simplifying the process to make it less onerous on both applicants and assessors.

3.2 Officers worked with CSC to ensure applications were sought from a wider pool than previously. Actions taken were:

· Redrafting the Contract to ensure both parties had a common understanding of Council’s expectations as outlined in the Community Funding Policy 2018 and with regard to delivering the contract;

· Rewriting the information sheet that accompanied the application form to align with Council’s funding policy;

· Promotion of the Small Grants Fund by Square Edge Community Arts and Environment Network Manawatu to their member organisations; and

· Officers sought to include representatives from the art and environment sectors as well as the social sector on a smaller funding panel. This was not able to be achieved for 2019/2020 but will be so in future.

3.3 Officers also worked with CSC to simplify the decision process. Actions taken were:

· Redesigning the process;

· Redesigning the application form; and

· Moving to Council’s online grant management tool ‘SmartyGrants’, which removes the need to carry out interviews and streamlines administration.

4. applications

4.1 The CSC funding panel met in June 2020 to assess the applications and allocations were made once the 2020/2021 budget had been set. The Working Party has complied with the criteria set within the PNCC Community Funding Policy 2018 and proper processes have been followed.

4.2 $306,000 was requested by the 69 organisations making contributions to 1 or more Council strategies as follows:

· Creative and Liveable Strategy 13 applications

· Connected Community Strategy 61 applications

· Eco City Strategy 5 applications

5. budget

5.1 Budget 2020/2021 provided $183,293 for the Small Grants Fund.

5.2 In accordance with the agreement with the Community Services Council, a fee of $10,000 of the grant budget was retained by them to undertake the allocation and distribution process.

5.3 $5,000 is set aside annually as an Emergency Grant Fund for allocation during the financial year. This fund, which sits in an account controlled by the Community Services Council, was not drawn upon in 2018/2019 and thus does not need topping up in 2020/2021.

5.4 Funds available for distribution thus totalled $173,293.

6. allocations

6.1 Assessors distributed the full $173,293 through the following allocations:

Organisation	Grant
Agape Fellowship Charitable Trust	$3,053.00
Age Concern New Zealand Palmerston North and Districts Branch Inc.	$3,004.00
Alliance Francaise Palmerston North Incorporated	$3,053.00
Alzheimers Society Manawatu Inc.	$3,053.00
Big Brothers Big Sisters Manawatu	$3,053.00
Birthright Central	$1,404.00
Brain Injury Association Central Districts Incorporated	$3,053.00
Citizens Advice Bureau Palmerston North	$3,053.00
Community Birth Services Charitable Trust	$1,343.00
Creative Sounds Society Inc.	$2,626.00
Deaf Aotearoa - Manawatu	$3,053.00
Digits Charitable Trust	$2,955.00
Environment Network Manawatu	$3,053.00
Financial Freedom Trust	$3,053.00
Green Hub Trust (Studio on the Square)	$3,053.00
Housing Advice Centre Palmerston North	$2,595.00
Kind Hearts Trust	$2,840.00
Legacy Centre	$2,748.00
LUCK Trust	$3,053.00
Manawatu Chinese Community Trust	$3,053.00
Manawatu Community Housing Trust	$2,443.00
Manawatu Hindu Society	$2,626.00
Manawatu Home Budgeting Service	$3,053.00
Manawatu Horowhenua and Tararua Diabetes Trust	$3,053.00
Manawatu Lesbian & Gay Rights Assn - MaLGRA	$2,943.00
Manawatu Multiple Sclerosis Society	$2,655.00
Manawatu People's Radio	$3,053.00
Manawatu Reuniting Refugee Families Trust	$2,055.00
Manawatu Tenants' Union	$2,137.00
Manawatu Toy Library, Inc.	$3,053.00
MANLINE- Manawatu Alternatives to Violence Inc	$2,443.00
MentorED Charitable Trust	$3,010.00
Mnawatu Multicultural Council	$3,053.00
New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups Inc - Palmerston North	$1,832.00
Palmerston North Cadet Unit	$1,990.00
Palmerston North City Neighbourhood Support Groups Inc	$2,954.00
Palmerston North La Leche League	$2,551.00
Palmerston North Methodist Social Services Trust	$3,053.00
Palmerston North Papua New Guinea Community Trust	$3,053.00
PALMERSTON NORTH PARENTS CENTRE	$2,709.00
Palmerston North Street Van incorporated	$3,053.00
Papaoea Pasifika Community Trust (PPCT)	$3,018.00
Parentline Manawatu	$3,053.00
Presbyterian New Church	$1,901.00
Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society of the Manawatu District Incorporated	$1,832.00
Rangiwahia environmental arts centre	$2,870.00
Snails Artist Run Space	$1,977.00
SnapBACK Gym	$3,053.00
Square Edge Community Arts	$2,931.00
Strive Rehabilitation Manawatu	$2,654.00
Supporting Families in Mental Illness Manawatu Incorporated	$3,053.00
Te Aroha Noa Community Services	$3,053.00
Te Hā o Hine-ahu-one Palmerston North Women's Health Collective	$3,053.00
Te Manawa Family Services	$1,787.00
Te Roopu Whakaruruhau O Nga Wahine Maori Inc	$3,053.00
The Free Store Charitable Trust (T/A Just Zilch)	$3,053.00
The Manawatu Just Released Accommodation Trust	$3,053.00
The Manawatu Pregnancy Centre Trust	$3,053.00
The Parkinson's New Zealand Charitable Trust	$904.00
The Royal New Zealand Foundation fo the Blind	$3,053.00
The society for the resilience and engagement of the community of Ashhurst and Pohangina	$1,417.00
Volunteer Central	$3,053.00
Work Manawatu	$2,443.00
Youthline CNI	$3,053.00
	$173,293

7. NEXT STEPS

The allocations will be listed on Council’s website.

8. 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: Implement the Community Funding Policy.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Palmerston North depends on having a strong community and voluntary sector. One of the ways it does this is through the provision of operational funding to the organisations that contribute to Council’s strategic priorities.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2020

TITLE: Safety Advisory Board Strategic Plan

Presented By: Patrick Handcock, Chair of the Safety Advisory Board and Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager.

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Community Development Committee

1. That the report entitled “Safety Advisory Board Strategic Plan” presented to the Community Development Committee on 5 August 2020, be received for information.

2. That the Safety Advisory Board be commended for the work completed on the new plan.

1. ISSUE

The Safety Advisory Board (SAB) has entered a new five-year phase following reaccreditation of Palmerston North as a Safe City in 2019. The first step in that process has been the development of a new Strategic Plan, including a review of the Board’s purpose. As a result, the scope of the Board’s focus is significantly wider than it was previously and better aligns with the work of the various agencies represented on the SAB, who want to work together to make a positive difference. This report provides a high-level overview of the work carried out to date.

2. context

2.1 Palmerston North is an Accredited Safe Community through the Safe Communities Foundation NZ (SCFNZ) which is a Safe Community Support and Accrediting Centre of the Pan Pacific Safe Community Network (PPSCN).

2.2 SCFNZ adopts both public health and community development principles in its approach to build social capital and increasing wellbeing through community safety promotion actively supporting the Government wellbeing agenda, alongside the Sustainable Development Goals.

2.3 Safe Communities is aligned to central government objectives including: Department of Internal Affairs’ Purpose; ACC Strategic intent; Ministry of Health: Health Promotion Agency focus on reducing drug and alcohol-related harm; Ministry of Social Development outcomes; NZ Police Prevention First Strategy; NZTA ‘Safer Journeys 2020’.

2.4 The Local Government Act 2002 recognises that Territorial Authorities have an important role to play as they are the most effective deliverers of local services. The Local Government Amendment Act 2018 includes “promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future”. The Safe Communities model is well placed to address the needs of local government to address the four wellbeings – in particular the social and cultural aspects.

2.5 Safe Cities are city wide networks that support wellbeing, placemaking, resilience and injury/violence prevention initiatives. This model is recognized worldwide, including by the World Health Organisation, as an effective and acceptable intervention that improves community wellbeing and reduces the burden of injury experienced by individuals, families, whānau and communities.

2.6 Safe Communities concepts embody the values and philosophies of whanaungatanga (relationships) manaakitanga (respect, care and support) and tino rangatiratanga (self-determination and autonomy). The Manifesto for Safe Communities states that “All human beings have an equal right to health and safety”.

3. Safety Advisory BOard

3.1 The SAB is a governance group for Palmerston North’s safe city initiatives. It is coordinated by a Safe City Coordinator, who is a Council employee, and is chaired by Cr Patrick Handcock.

3.2 The SAB usually meets every 6-8 weeks and continued to meet remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Membership is comprised of representatives from the following organisations:

Rangitaane	Police	New Zealand Defence Force
Mid Central Health	Massey University	Kainga Ora
ACC	Department of Corrections	Fire and Emergency
MSD	Ministry of Education	Oranga Tamariki

3.3 Palmerston North was accredited as a Safe City in 2014 and reaccredited in 2019; the SAB leads the accreditation process. In developing a new Strategic Plan for the next five-year period, the SAB adopted a Results Based Accountability (RBA) methodology. This is an outcomes framework that is widely used by NZ government agencies and NGO providers, so was familiar to many Board members.

4. Significant change in scope

4.1 Sharon Shea from SheaPita facilitated a workshop in the week before lockdown to guide the SAB through the RBA process. During the workshop it was agreed that the Board needed to focus more on root causes if it hoped to effect change and that the priority areas needed to be more directly relevant to the work focus of the various agencies represented on the Board. The new broader vision is much more inclusive and pertinent, particularly as agencies navigate through a COVID-19 future.

4.2 Table 1 summarises the key elements of the new strategy and the high-level changes from the previous plan.

Element	Previous Plan 2014-2019	New Strategy 2019-2024
Outcome (PNCC Connected Community Strategy – Priority 4)	Palmerston North is a City where people feel safe and are safe.
	2014-2019 Vision A Safe Community for all people within Palmerston North.	2019-2024 Outcome Palmerston North is a Safe Community.
Experience Statement (what does success look like)		People will feel safe and secure, feel connected and valued as a member of the community. People in our communities will live in healthy homes, have positive relationships, and will feel empowered, seek out educational opportunities and work in jobs of their choice. They will have a sense of place, belonging and hope. In times of emergency or stress our communities will be cohesive and resilient. Residents will know how to keep themselves safe and will collectively act in support of the wider community.
Priority areas (Workstreams)	· Collaboration · Crime Prevention · Road Safety · Alcohol and other drug harm · Injury Prevention · Resilience	· Crime · Connectedness and resilience · Youth · Housing · Healthy Lifestyles · Education · Employment and income

Table 1: Focus areas and population indicators to measure impact.

4.3 Table 2 show the key population level indicators that have been selected for each focus area to monitor data trends over the coming years in order to measure the impact of the City’s collective activity. This will be foundational for the reaccreditation application.

4.4 The SAB will initially focus on the first four areas while the new framework is bedded in. Additionally, Mid Central Health have produced a comprehensive ‘Palmerston North Health and Wellbeing Plan’ (HWP), which has a large crossover with the SAB focus areas. This will comprise the effort under the 5^th area: Healthy Lifestyles.

Focus Area	Indicators
Crime	· Family harm - total # of family harm investigations. · Reported crime: 'unlawful entry with intent' and 'theft & related offences'.
Connectedness and resilience	· Neighbourhood connectedness - Proportion of people feeling safe when at home by themselves at night. · Safety and loneliness - proportion of people feeling very safe or safe.
Youth	· Youth Suicide - youth suicide rate per 100,000 · % School leavers with at least NCEA Level 2 qualification or equivalent. · Youth Justice - Youth offending rates per 10,000 by Police District (aged 10-13).
Housing	· Public housing waiting list
Healthy Lifestyles	· Psychological distress - Prevalence of Psychological distress (high or very high probability of anxiety or depressive disorder). (aged 15+) · Unmet need for primary care - Proportion of adults (15+) who experienced 1 or more of unmet needs for primary health care in the past 12months.

Table 2: Focus areas and population indicators to measure impact.

4.5 RBA is about the collective impact of agencies and NGOs working across the City – the Safe City Ecosystem (attached). While each of the focus areas has a lead agency it takes the work of many ‘partners’ working together to have an impact.

4.6 The role of the SAB is to provide high-level oversight across the Safe City Ecosystem, identifying gaps and opportunities to work together, monitoring progress and identifying interventions.

4.7 Work has begun transitioning the activity of community organisations working in the Safe City Ecosystem onto the RBA framework as well. Groups funded through Strategic Priority Grants were moved to the RBA framework in 2019. Other groups will be invited to contribute to the collective reporting during 2020. This means that the collective impact of City-wide action by agencies and NGOs can be measured and the story told when we come to the next reaccreditation in 2024.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 The Board will continue its work on understanding the situation through analysing the trends for the key indicators within each workstream. It will have ‘turning the curve’ conversations to identify what might work to effect positive change and who needs to be involved, and it will monitor the data to track progress.

5.2 Once the Strategic Plan has been completed it will be brought back to Council for information.

6. 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 Safe Community Plan The actions are: · Coordinate and facilitate the Safety Advisory Board, · Engage relevant organisations in Safe Community re-accreditation process, · Work with SAB work streams to identify where there are gaps in support to community organisations that focus on safety initiatives.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Safety Advisory Board is a governance board with representatives drawn from government agencies working across the City. The board works collaboratively to have a positive collective impact on the City’s safety and this contributes directly to Councils strategic framework.

Attachments

Palmerston North Safe City Eco-System ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2020

TITLE: Feasibility of introducing a companion card for those with permanent disabilities

PRESENTED BY: Joann Ransom, Community Development Manager

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the report entitled “Feasibility of introducing a companion card for those with permanent disabilities” presented to the Community Development Committee on 5 August 2020, be received.

2. That Council approve undertaking a partnership with Mana Whaikaha to implement a local Companion Card Scheme (Option 1).

3. That Council approve a $10,000 unbudgeted expense to implement such a scheme.

4. That the scheme be reviewed after 12 months as to its effectiveness and report back to Council.

5. That, at the appropriate time, the Chief Executive write to the cultural CCOs and Council funded ticketed activity providers encouraging them to support the companion card scheme.

6. That the Chief Executive write to the Ministry of Culture and Heritage advocating for the introduction of a nationwide Companion Card scheme and offering the Council and Mana Whaikaha pilot scheme for their evidential base.

Summary of options analysis for

Opportunity	Introducing a companion card for those with permanent disabilities.
OPTION 1:	Partner with Mana Whaikaha to implement a companion card scheme.
Community Views	This is the preferred option of the Disability Reference Group and Mana Whaikaha.
Benefits	Mana Whaikaha already have a client database to manage eligibility and distribution of cards.
Risks	Inability to obtain buy-in from ticketed activity providers and / or their inability to participate due to venue facility constraints.
Financial	To be negotiated through a contract; Council would need to contribute communications and marketing expertise from within existing FTE and $10,000 to reimburse ticketed activity providers.
OPTION 2:	Council implements a local companion card scheme.
Community Views	It is unlikely that many would object to the principle of introducing a companion card scheme to the City but it is likely that the community would object to incurring significant additional, unbudgeted cost in 20/21.
Benefits	Would demonstrate Council’s commitment to developing an inclusive City through improving the accessibility of persons with disabilities to participate in community life including events and performances.
Risks	Managing the eligibility will be essential to maintain confidence of activity providers. Inability to obtain buy-in from ticketed activity providers and / or their inability to participate due to venue facility constraints.
Financial	$70,000 in year 1. Not funded in 2020/2021 but could be considered in the development of the 10 year plan as a new programme and level of service.
OPTION 3:	Wait for a nationwide companion card scheme to be implemented.
Community Views	The disabled community nationwide has been advocating for a nationwide companion card scheme since 2014. There is no sign that such a scheme is imminent.
Benefits	Persons with disabilities would be able to access ticketed activities in other cities.
Risks	It is unlikely that Government will get such a scheme in place within the next 2 years given it is not part of the current Disability Action Plan
Financial	Nil to PNCC.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Background and previous council decisions

1.1 Council’s vision for Palmerston North is for every resident to be able to enjoy the benefits of living in a small city. Goal 3 is for a connected and safe community. Priority 1 of the Connected and Safe Strategy is to: “develop, provide and advocate for services and facilities that create a connected, welcoming and inclusive community.

1.2 The Disability Reference Group (DRG) was established by Council in 2018 as a forum for the needs of people with disabilities to be heard and considered in the context of Council’s roles and priorities.

1.3 On the 2nd September 2019, the DRG presented to Community Development Committee of Council on their first year of activity and their aspirations looking forward. They also requested Council to champion the concept of a companion card scheme that would enable those with a permanent disability and a lifelong need for ‘attendant care support’ to participate in community activities and attend events.

1.4 At that meeting Council resolved:

“That the Chief Executive be instructed to report back on the feasibility of introducing a Companion Card for those with permanent disabilities”.

1.5 This report explores the feasibility of introducing a companion card scheme to the City.

2. how a Companion card scheme works

2.1 The National Companion Card Scheme operates in Australia and was developed:

· To promote the existing right of people with a disability to fair ticketing;

· As a tool to assist industry to comply with anti-discrimination legislation;

· As a simple and consistent method of identifying people who legitimately require attendant care support to participate at venues and activities.

2.2 The Companion Card is issued to people with a significant or profound permanent disability who can demonstrate that they are unable to access most community activities and venues without high-level attendant care support.

2.3 The card contains a photograph of the cardholder and can be presented when booking or purchasing a ticket at events and venues or accessing public transport. The participating organisations issue the cardholder with a second ticket for their companion at no charge. Not all events and venues are part of the Companion Card program.

3. A NZ Companion Card

3.1 Arts Access Aotearoa has been advocating to the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) for a companion card scheme for NZ since 2014. The Ministry of Culture and Heritage (MCH), alongside the MSD and the Office of Disability Issues (ODI), undertook the initial policy development for a companion card scheme in New Zealand. In 2015 ODI released a Disability Action Plan that included:

Shared Result:	Promote access in the community.
Priority 12:	Promote opportunities for disabled people to participate in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport
Action:	Investigate the feasibility of introducing a companion card programme in New Zealand to reduce the cost barrier for disabled people who require a companion to attend paid-entry activities.

3.2 The work investigating the feasibility of introducing a companion card scheme was completed in October 2016 with a briefing from MCH to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage and other relevant government Ministers.

3.3 The briefing reported that while setting up a companion card was feasible, there was a limited evidential base to understand the nature and size of the need. Several surveys had attempted to gather data but the achieved response rates of 5% - 14%, which was not considered high enough. The cost of setting up the scheme was estimated at around $1m and annual administrations costs of $100k+ despite being able to access existing government assessment systems.

3.4 Included in the risk analysis was the impact of activity providers not joining the scheme. It would require a legislative change to force participation and there was no confidence that providers would join the scheme voluntarily. The risk was assessed as ‘Medium’ for likelihood and ‘High’ for impact. Mitigation would be by way of a communications strategy that promoted two messages:

· The reputational benefits of attracting a section of the disabled community,

· Emphasising requirements under the Human Rights Act 1993 which prohibits discrimination against disable persons.

3.5 Research found that:

· 82% of activity providers believe there is a need for a nationally consistent companion card scheme;

· 91% of activity providers would like to see such a scheme established,

· 72% would support the card with the main barrier being the lack of available facilities for the disabled.

4. alternative approaches

4.1 ODI leads work to encourage organisations and event promoters to make their activities and events more easily accessible for people with disabilities.

4.2 Arts Access Aotearoa are also working in this space to increase access to the arts for people who experience barriers to participation as artists, performers, audience members, and gallery and museum visitors. They do this largely through an education programme and providing a national advisory and advocacy service including resources and research.

4.3 Issues have been raised in forums that refer to price being a barrier for disabled people as a general fact. This is a legitimate concern as most disabled people live on low incomes. This issue has sometimes been addressed under ‘community service cards’ for people who have low incomes which would include seniors.

4.4 Cold calling activity providers throughout the county showed that discounted tickets have been provided to shows and events in bespoke situations like festivals and sports and arena events. Policies differ across cities and venues. Auckland Festival for example did not require ‘official authorisation’ via a card and took bookings on trust. They provided reduced ticket prices for greater access for people with a disability to attend many festival offerings.

5. Option 1 - Partner with Mana Whaikaha to implement a local companion card scheme.

5.1 ‘Mana Whaikaha – Enabling Good Lives’ is a prototype of a transformed disability support service funded by the NZ Government, through the Ministry of Health. This contract has just been rolled over.

5.2 Mana Whaikaha has approached Council with a proposal to set up and administer a companion card scheme. PNCC and the DRG would endorse the initiative with PNCC contributing communications and marketing support.

5.3 The high-level model is sketched below and, if this option is selected, further work would be carried out to formalise the relationships, obligations and cost sharing through a service contract.

Project	Palmerston North Companion Card
Sponsor	PNCC – Disability Reference group
Lead	Mana Whaikaha
Partner	Ministry of Health
Description	To introduce a companion card for disabled people in Palmerston North. The card will allow disabled people to be accompanied by a companion when visiting a ticketed venue without the need to buy two tickets.
Implementation	· Mana Whaikaha will set up a registration process for disabled people to apply for receiving a companion card. · Mana Whaikaha will manage the registration process, keep a data base of all registered people, issue and manage the cards. · PNCC will design and print the cards. · Ministry of Health would contribute to the design of the card. · PNCC will develop and implement a communications and marketing strategy to promote the scheme across the city encouraging ticketed venues to participate in the scheme to expand its reach. · Mana Whaikaha would manage the reimbursement to activity providers for the cost of the companion seats provided.

5.4 Obtaining buy-in of activity providers.

5.4.1 This is probably the biggest challenge to implementing a Companion Card Scheme as there is little point implementing a scheme to provide free seats to companions if there is nowhere to use it. The MCH research identified this as a hurdle that would require a law change to compel participation. A comprehensive communications strategy was identified as crucial to success of the scheme.

5.4.2 The ticketed entry activity providers in the City where a Companion Card scheme could apply include: movie theatres, swimming pools, Centrepoint, The Stomach, Snails, Arena Manawatu plus the CCOs: The Regent, The Globe, Te Manawa and Caccia Birch. The Regent and The Globe are primarily venues for hire. Council does not usually ticket its events.

5.4.3 Officers have rung the various activity providers and ascertained that there are no special ticketing arrangements for companions of disabled people in the City. While Council does have influence over the CCOs who provide venues for hire this does not necessarily extend to the promoters or ticketing agencies themselves.

5.4.4 Council could express their wish for CCOs and other ticketed activity providers, like the swimming pools and Centrepoint to encourage their hirers to provide companion entry. However, it is unlikely we could compel them, or the hirers, or contracted service providers to do so (in the case of the swimming pools).

5.4.5 If Council does support introducing a Companion Card Scheme then Council may choose to create a capped fund to reimburse activity providers for lost income due to companion seating. The extent of this demand is unknown as knowing how many eligible persons there are for a Companion Card is not the same as knowing how often cards would be used.

5.5 Facilities for disabled persons.

As it is unknown what demand there would be by persons with disabilities, it is unknown what capacity venues would need to develop if existing capacity is inadequate. This would need to be assessed over time and, if additional spaces and other facilities are required for CCOs, this would be at Council’s expense.

5.6 Costs

The value of Council’s Marketing and Communications Unit developing and implementing a communications strategy, including designing and printing cards and window stickers is estimated at $10,000. This would need to be accommodated from within existing resources. The cost of providing a capped fund to compensate providers for loss of income is suggested as being $10,000 of unbudgeted expenditure.

6. Option 2 – Council implements a companion card scheme.

6.1 Assessment of eligibility.

The MCH research found that “there is no simple and consistent way for providers of activities to determine who legitimately requires a companion card to attend paid entry activities”.

Council would be in this same position and would need to investigate how it could assess or verify eligibility of applicants given that Council is not privy to data held by various government agencies.

6.2 The discussion under Option 1 around obtaining the buy-In of activity providers and the ability of activity providers to accommodate persons with disabilities also apply under Option 2.

6.3 Costs – estimate $70k year 1 and $20k thereafter.

Component	Budget estimate
Establishment - 1 FTE for 6 months	$40,000
Administering - 0.25 FTE pa (1/2 yr only for 20/21)	$10,000
Communications and Marketing (developing and implementing strategy, design, printing)	$10,000
Compensating activity providers for lost income	$10,000
Year 1 estimated costs	$70k

The cost of implementing this new programme has not been budgeted in 2020/2021 and there is no existing capacity within the existing staffing establishment and budgets to implement this programme in 2020/2021. It would need to put forward to the Long Term Plan Discussions as a new programme.

6.4 Mandate

Council does not usually provide social services, other than social housing, directly to the public. Our approach is to support the community to take ownership of community issues and develop solutions. Developing and implementing a Companion Card scheme does not appear as an action in the current plans and there is no funding allocated. Proceeding with Option 2 would require consideration of a new programme through the LTP process and a new level of service.

7. Option 3 – Wait for a nationwide companion card scheme

7.1 The Government decided introducing a nationwide Companion Card scheme was not a priority for Budget 2017 and again in 2019.

7.2 The Disability Action Plan for 2019-2023 presented a package of 25 cross-government work programmes that are underway or are being planned that have an explicit disability perspective. It does not include the Companion Card scheme although there is scope for it to be added:

“The Action Plan responds to the main issues identified by disabled people, the Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) Coalition and government agencies working together. We expect most of the work programmes in the Action Plan to continue beyond 2023. New work programmes may be added to the Action Plan over its timeframe.”

7.3 In carrying out research for this paper, MCH expressed an interest in hearing from Council if it would like to advocate for a nationwide companion card scheme. A submission by LGNZ had contributed to the decision not to proceed with a nationwide scheme.

8. Analysis of options

8.1 Option 1 – Partnering with Mana Whaikaha to implement a companion card system is feasible and achievable in 2020/2021. The cost to Council under this option would be in providing communications, design and marketing expertise by existing staff plus making an unbudgeted $10,000 available to reimburse the loss of income to activity providers, should Council wish to do so.

8.2 Option 2 – It is possible for Council to introduce a Companion Card scheme on its own. However, without the budget or mandate for doing this in 2020/2021 it would need to be considered by Councillors as a new programme during the LTP deliberations as a new level of service.

8.3 Option 3 – waiting for a nationwide scheme is a long game as there is no current plan to introduce a companion card scheme. Council could lend its voice to the community advocacy and write to the Office for Disability Issues within MSD urging them to add the Companion Card initiative as a work programme to the Disability Action Plan 2019-2023 and inviting them to partner with our pilot programme which could then form part of the evidential base they are currently lacking.

9. Recommendations

9.1 Council’s resolution was to explore the feasibility of introducing a companion card scheme to the City. While it is feasible for Council to introduce a scheme on its own in 2021/2022 the best option is Option 1, partnering with Mana Whaikaha, Ministry of Health and the Disability Reference Group.

10. Next actions

· Officers enter in discussions with Mana Whaikaha to negotiate a contract to implement a companion card scheme in the City.

· Council’s Marketing and Communications Unit to work with Mana Whaikaha to design and implement a strategy to launch the Companion Card Scheme.

· Officers write to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage advocating for the implementation of a nationwide companion card scheme and partnering to use this pilot in their evidential base.

11. 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?		No
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 Services and Facilities Plan
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The purpose of this plan is to enable participation: Priority 1: Develop, provide and advocate for services and facilities that create a connected, welcoming and inclusive community. A Companion Card scheme would be in keeping with the intention of Goal 3: ‘A connected and safe Community’ but there is not currently an action to do this. If Council is supportive of the initiative then it would be an action to consider during the development of the 10 year plan.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2020

TITLE: Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion - Tenant Lounge Option Analysis

Presented By: Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property and Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager - Parks and Reserves

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the memorandum entitled “Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion – Tenant Lounge Option Analysis” presented to the Community Development Committee on 5 August 2020, be received for information.

2. That Stage 3 of the Papaioea Place Redevelopment be referred to the 2021-31 Long Term Plan process.

1. ISSUE

1.1 A deputation was given to the Community Development Committee on 1 July 2020 by some residents at Council’s Papaioea Place Social Housing Complex expressing their desire for a tenant lounge or shared hall space to be made available in the immediate vicinity of the complex.

1.2 The tenants spoke to the need for a communal space over and above the housing units whereby residents could connect and use for a variety of social activities.

1.3 As the old tenant lounge within the complex had been demolished, there was currently no alternative tenant lounge option within the complex.

1.4 Council is to consider the preferred scope for the potential Stage 3 of the Papaioea Place Redevelopment as part of the 2021-31 LTP. Stage 3 could include a new tenant lounge within the complex, or an alternative option being proposed could be to utilise the Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion to accommodate the needs of the residents.

1.5 With this in mind, and in response to this deputation, Council resolved:
2. That the Chief Executive investigate the Papaioea Park cricket pavilion for use by the Papaioea Place residents as a community space, and that this be reported back to the next Community Development Committee meeting.

1.6 This report addresses this resolution.

2. BACKGROUND

Papaioea Place Redevelopment

2.1 The Papaioea Place project form of contract is a design and build contract between Palmerston North City Council (Principal) and Latitude Homes (Contractor) of New Plymouth.

2.2 Papaioea Place Stage 1 was delivered through Programme 357. This saw the demolition of the 32 existing units and the construction of 50 new units in their place. Stage 1 was completed as planned on 28 February 2020 and within budget.

2.3 Papaioea Place Stage 2 sees the demolition of the remaining blocks of units on site, the old tenant lounge, and the old hall, and in its place the construction of an additional 28 new units. Once complete this will take the total number of new units on the site to 78.

2.4 As indicated in Clause 1.3 of this report, the old tenant lounge within the complex was demolished as part of Stage 2 of the Papaioea Place Redevelopment project, and at the time of writing this report there was currently no alternative tenant lounge option within the complex.

2.5 Council is to consider the preferred scope for the potential Stage 3 of the Papaioea Place Redevelopment as part of the 2021-31 LTP. The scope of Stage 3 could include a new tenant lounge in some capacity within the complex, or an alternative option being proposed could be to utilise the Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion to accommodate the needs of the residents.

Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion

2.6 Built in the 1920s, the 140m² Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion is primarily used by Manawatu Cricket Association over the summer months and Central Football Association over the winter months as support for their sporting activities at Papaioea Park.

2.7 After speaking with the Manawatu Cricket and Central Football, Council Officers understand the pavilion building is generally used for its changing rooms and kitchen and bathroom facilities.

2.8 The main usage occurs primarily on Saturdays for gamedays and occasionally twice during the week in the evenings for trainings.

2.9 Providing the pavilion is still available to them to meet their current needs, both parties have informally expressed that they are comfortable with the pavilion being explored as a possible option to accommodate the needs of the residents within the housing complex.

3. Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion Analysis

Current Condition

3.1 Council Officers have undertaken a condition assessment of the Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion.

3.2 Overall the pavilion building has been assessed to be in a poor condition. Whilst there are no reported issues with the building structure itself, there are multiple issues that would need to be addressed if it were to meet the requirements of the housing residents including:

· The facilities within the building are aged and run down;

· The building is not considered to meet accessibility standards of the housing residents;

· Whilst the building is compliant for its current use, works trigging a building consent will require several upgrades in this area; and

· The building has poor heating and cooling provision and is not insulated.

3.3 It is important to note that the pavilion is meeting the current needs of the sports users especially given the infrequent use rate, however, it would require considerable renovation if it were to be considered fit-for-purpose as a multi-use space accommodating a tenant lounge.

Renovation Strategy

3.4 As a general strategy the works to be completed within the facility need to enable multi-use, both from the existing users of the facility, but also converting it to act as a tenant lounge.

3.5 It has been assessed that the best way to achieve this is to redesign and improve the internal layout of the building to create a separated sports pavilion area and a secure tenant lounge area. This will help mitigate the risk of conflicting use and ensure the security of the assets within the individual spaces.

3.6 A summary of the proposed new layout:

· The building will continue to be accessed through the main entrance in the centre of the building facing the park.

· There will be a shared accessible toilet in the main foyer.

· The left side of the building will house the sports pavilion facility and feature its own kitchenette, toilet, changing and shower facilities.

· The right side of the building will be the newly created tenant lounge. This will also feature its own kitchenette, and toilet and bathroom facilities.

· The actual lounge area will be approx. 40m² (5m x 8m) and should comfortably sit 20 people at a time.

3.7 The concept layout is below:

3.8 Works will focus on:

· Functionality – multi-use, enabling maximum use of the building

· Sustainability – energy efficiency, heating and cooling improvements etc.

· Lifting the overall quality of the facility and its components;

· Accessibility; and

· Meeting compliance requirements – BWOF, fire and asbestos removal.

3.9 Recommended Scope of Works to be Completed

3.10 General Building Work:

· Provide Drafting Service for additional toilet and wash basin;

· Allowance for Alpha Fire/Egress Report and compliance works;

· Repaint exterior walls of building;

· Repaint all interior of building;

· Supply and install Insert Aluminium Double Glazing to all joinery units;

· Supply and install ball guards to front joinery of Pavilion;

· Divide current space into two separate functioning spaces;

· Supply and install two Heat Pumps for main areas, protect exterior units in Galvanised Cages;

· Insulate full ceiling areas with R3.2 Ceiling Insulation;

· Insulate all accessible under floor with R1.5 Insulation;

· Controlled asbestos removal included for all asbestos backed vinyl within the building; and

· Allowance included for repairs to existing subfloor framing.

3.11 Tenant Lounge Area:

· Remove shower area, floor coverings, fixtures and fittings, cylinder, interior linings and trims where needed;

· Install partition walls as per design provided for new Accessible Bathroom;

· Provide new hardware throughout, new trims as required, wall linings to timber framed walls as required;

· Supply and fit 3 new toilets (accessible), hand basins and tapware to refresh bathrooms;

· Supply and fit new kitchenette with splash back;

· Provide new Vinyl flooring to kitchenette and two bathrooms;

· Provide Carpet to lounge room; and

· Provide Cylinder HW mains pressure HW heating.

3.12 Sports Rooms Area:

· Remove part kitchen benches and make good area;

· Replace toilet and basin with new;

· Reline shower cubicle with new Hydra-panel, and install new fittings;

· Provide new hardware throughout, new trims as required, wall linings to timber framed walls as required; and

· Sand and Polyurethane timber floors to all Sports Areas, including toilet and shower rooms.

3.13 The above works have been quoted at around $180,000 + GST.

3.14 In addition to the above works the following could be considered:

· Roof Replacement;

· Full re-plumb and re-wire of building;

· Creation of a pathway to the pavilion from the housing development; and

· Security lighting for the pathway above.

3.15 The roof and wiring are estimated to come to the end of their useable life within the next 10 years. As such Council Officers recommend that these works also be undertaken alongside the renovation works.

3.16 The pathway and lighting provision are recommended to be undertaken both from an accessibility and security viewpoint.

3.17 It is recommended $100,000 + GST be allowed for these works.

3.18 Factoring in contingency, project management and other project related costs, it is recommended a total project budget of $350,000 + GST be allowed for this project.

Papaioea Park Zoning Considerations

3.19 Papaioea Park is zoned "Recreation" under the current operational District Plan.

3.20 The park is not held as a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 but is treated as a reserve due to its current use under the LGA 2002. The park is used for sports and general recreation.

3.21 Even though Papaioea Park is not strictly vested as a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, if Council treated the park as vested, the following condition for any proposed activity would be required under that act:

· All activity of a permanent or ongoing nature should be consistent with the purpose for which the reserve is held.

3.22 The purpose of Papaioea Park is for sports and general recreation. If the Papaioea housing tenants were to occupy a section of the pavilion, this would be considered consistent with the purpose of general recreation and social interaction. Therefore, this activity is considered consistent with Council's legal position on this reserve.

3.23 In addition, as this is considered a consistent activity, and it is not a new lease for the pavilion (the housing residents will just be users of the facility), no public consultation will be required regarding it being used as a tenant lounge.

General Considerations

3.24 There are several other operational matters Council would need to consider as part of this opportunity:

· Booking, administration and keys

o How will bookings be facilitated and administered?

o In the situation where there are conflicting bookings, who takes precedence? Who determines this?

o Dispute resolution? Reporting damage?

o Who will hold the keys to the facility?

· Additional cleaning and provisioning

o The pavilion is currently cleaned once a week by Council’s cleaning team, however, if being used more frequently this will require an increased level of service.

o New furniture will need to be supplied for the tenant lounge.

· Security

o The pavilion is on a publicly used park and thus will be interacted with by a multitude of the general public.

o The ensured safety and security for residents when using the lounge area.

o Will security cameras be required? What are the implications of this?

3.25 For clarity, these are not necessarily decisions for Councillors, but more considerations at an operational level with the various user groups.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 Council to consider the preferred scope for the potential Stage 3 of the Papaioea Place Redevelopment as part of the 2021-31 LTP. Stage 3 could include a new tenant lounge within the complex, or an alternative option being proposed could be to utilise the Papaioea Park Sports Pavilion to accommodate the needs of the residents.

4.2 For clarity there is currently no budget provision for Stage 3 so any additional funding of the preferred option would need to be formally approved as part of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.

5. 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?		No
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 Social Housing Plan The action is: Upgrade the Papaioea housing complex (by end of 2018/2019).
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Upgrade the Papaioea housing complex (by end of 2018/2019).

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Community Development Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2020

TITLE: Draft Local Alcohol Policy - Deliberations on Submissions

PRESENTED BY: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Statement of Proposal incorporating the revised draft Local Alcohol Policy 2020 (as attached as attachment one to the report entitled “Draft Local Alcohol Policy – Deliberations on Submissions” presented to the Community Development Committee on 5 August 2020) be approved for public consultation.

2. That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be authorised to make minor amendments to the Statement of Proposal prior to public consultation.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Following analysis of the submissions received during the consultation period, officers recommend some changes to the draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP). The significance of these proposed changes necessitates further public consultation before a draft LAP can be adopted.
OPTION 1:	Approve the Statement of Proposal (incorporating a revised draft LAP) for public consultation
Community Views	The Council has received community views on the draft LAP through the formal consultation process, and submitters have argued for a number of changes. Staff recommend some changes are made in response to the submissions. Case law has established that Council should re-consult with the community before adopting a policy that is significantly different from the initial proposal.
Benefits	Further consultation will provide the community with the opportunity to provide input on a revised draft Local Alcohol Policy.
Risks	Further consultation will delay the adoption of a Local Alcohol Policy.
Financial	The costs of consultation will be met from within existing budgets. However, further consultation was not anticipated, and the additional work to consult will inevitably divert staff time and resources away from future projects to continue work on the draft LAP.
OPTION 2:	Do not approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation – adopt the draft LAP as initially consulted.
Community Views	Council has already received community views through consultation on the draft LAP. If no significant changes are made to that proposal, then Council could choose to adopt it and no further consultation is required.
Benefits	The current draft LAP would be adopted by Council (becoming a Provisional LAP) and would then move to the next step – notifying adoption and calling for appeals.
Risks	If the LAP is appealed, and the Alcohol and Regulatory Licensing Authority (ARLA) rules some or all elements of the LAP as “unreasonable”, Council will be required to re-evaluate and resubmit those elements to ARLA. While an appeal is possible regardless of the policy adopted, an appeal to ARLA is more likely (and may be more likely to be upheld) if the Council cannot show it has taken into account the issues raised by submitters. This does not require the Council to make the changes suggested by submitter, but the absence of any consideration of those issues could lend support to a successful appeal to ARLA.
Financial	The costs arising if a Provisional LAP is appealed are unknown. Costs would be determined by the nature of the appeals and the appetite of the Council to engage legal counsel to represent the Council at ARLA hearings.
OPTION 3:	Do not approve the draft LAP for public consultation – cease work on a draft LAP.
Community Views	Council has already received community views through consultation on the draft LAP. If the Council chose not to proceed with a draft LAP, then no further consultation is required.
Benefits	There are no particular benefits to this option.
Risks	The Council would have no policy guiding licensing decisions by the DLC, and the alcohol-related harm that could have been minimised by the application of the draft LAP could continue. Without a policy the default national maximum trading hours would apply, leaving on-licensed premises free to apply for a licence to trade until 4am, and off-licensed premises free to apply for a licence to trade until 11pm.
Financial	There would be no further direct costs if the Council chose not to proceed with a draft LAP.

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.

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

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

· 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.

1.5 Having earlier resolved to develop a local alcohol policy, Council drafted and consulted on a draft LAP in 2019. Following hearings in February 2020, it is now required to deliberate on those submissions. This report provides advice for the Council on those submissions and recommends that further changes are made to the draft LAP in response to the issues raised by submitters. Officers also advise that the significance of the proposed changes to the draft LAP are such that further consultation is needed. This consultation would ensure that members of the community have an opportunity to make their views known on what Council is proposing to adopt, and for Council to take those views into consideration before making its decision.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The Council’s progress towards developing a local alcohol policy has been long and involved. The initial resolution was in 2013. Changes to the District Plan (identified after consultation on the first draft LAP in 2017) caused significant delay to the process, as did the complexity of the evidence required by the Act to support any proposed policy.

2.2 Officers began working again on the draft LAP once the necessary changes to the District Plan were completed. The draft 2017 LAP (now referred to as draft LAP v1) was used as the basis, and the existing Research Report was updated wherever possible with the most current information. Revisions were made to the draft LAP (now referred to as draft LAP v2) to achieve the same objectives as the draft LAP v1.

2.3 Public consultation on the draft LAP v2 was carried out between 26 October and 13 December 2019. Oral submissions were heard by the Community Development Committee on 25 February 2020.

2.4 Officer advice for the deliberations on submissions was scheduled to be presented to the Committee in May 2020 but this was delayed by the Council’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Description of options

3.1 The first option is to adopt the Statement of Proposal, incorporating the revised draft Local Alcohol Policy (now referred to as draft LAP v3). The draft LAP v3 includes a number of significant changes from the draft LAP v2 as a result of public consultation, namely:

	Proposed – draft LAP v3	Consulted – draft LAP v2	Current
Maximum trading hours – on-licensed premises	Hotels, taverns, and class 1 restaurants (with a bar area operated as a tavern): 8am to 3am All other on-licensed premises: 8am to 1am	All on-licensed premises in business and industrial zones: 8am to 2am All on-licensed premises in any other zone: 8am to 12am	8am – 4am (default national maximum trading hours set under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012)
Maximum trading hours – off-licensed premises	All off-licensed premises: 7am to 9pm	All off-licensed premises: 7am to 10pm	7am – 11pm (default national maximum trading hours set under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012)
One-way door restriction	Mandatory for any on-licensed premises trading beyond 2am, applying from 2am until closing.	No one-way door restriction	No one-way door restriction

3.2 The other notable changes made in the draft LAP v3 are:

· Moving the Explanatory Notes to a separate document attached as part of the Statement of Proposal for consultation.

· Including terms to the Definitions section (which is moved to an appendix at the end of draft LAP v3) for “one-way door restriction” and “exempt person.”

3.3 The second option is to not adopt the Statement of Proposal, but to adopt the draft LAP v2 as it was presented for public consultation in 2019.

3.4 The third option is to not adopt the Statement of Proposal, and to cease work on the development of a local alcohol policy.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 A full analysis of the issues raised by submitters is provided in the document attached to this report as attachment two. This analysis identifies changes recommend by officers in response to the issues raised by submitters.

Option one – adopt the Statement of Proposal (incorporating a revised draft LAP v3)

4.2 The recommended changes are substantially different from the draft LAP v2 which was put out for public consultation. Therefore, the first option is to adopt a new Statement of Proposal which incorporates the recommended changes, which would then be put out for public consultation.

4.3 Option one could be varied by making fewer or different changes to the initial proposal. Depending on the scope of those changes further consultation may not be required. The test that is applied is whether the proposed changes would have generated significantly different submissions to those which were received. It could be argued that only making a change to the maximum trading hours for on-licensed premises (for example increasing the maximum trading hours to 3am) might not generate significantly different submissions. Given the submissions already received in support of the proposed 2am trading hours (and advocating for even greater restrictions), submitters may have already conveyed the main arguments opposed to less restrictive trading hours. Therefore, it could be argued that they would likely submit in substantially the same vein if the Council had proposed to set maximum trading hours at 3am.

4.4 However, taking all the recommended changes together, officers advise that the changes are substantially different from what was proposed for consultation in 2019 and would likely generate different submissions. Therefore, further consultation is recommended.

4.5 The scope of the changes proposed in the draft LAP v3 remain consistent with the evidence presented in the research report. A key concern identified in the report is the impact of preloading on alcohol-related harm. Shifting the emphasis in reduction of maximum trading hours to off-licensed premises will more precisely address the issue of preloading (within the limitations of the scope of the LAP) because it will further limit the availability of alcohol for preloading. The other changes are consequent to the change in focus on trading hours – the inclusion of a mandatory one-way door restriction mitigates the easing of trading hour restrictions for some on-licensed premises.

4.6 The draft LAP v3 responds to the issues that submitters have raised by further refining the proposals that aim to reduce alcohol-related harm. The revised proposals do this by:

· further restricting the availability of alcohol from off-licensed premises through shorter trading hours;

· limiting maximum trading hours for some on-licensed premises to 3am (1am for class 2 and 3 restaurants, cafes, cinemas, theatres and function centres)

· creating a one-way door restriction for on-licences that mitigates the potential harm associated with sale of alcohol late at night.

4.7 The main benefit of option one is that it allows the Council to continue engaging with the community on the best set of proposals to minimise alcohol-related harm. It shows that the Council is listening to the community and is prepared to re-evaluate and modify the proposal in response to the concerns of those who make submissions.

4.8 The key risk to option one is that it will further delay the adoption of a draft LAP. Until a policy has been adopted and cleared the appeals process, it has no effect, and the risk remains that the alcohol-related harm the Council seeks to minimise continues unchecked. Also, continuing consultation on a draft LAP extends the gap between the data and research collected for the development of the draft LAP and its ultimate adoption. The longer that this takes the greater the chance that the policy will not be based on current and relevant data.

Option two – adopt the draft LAP (v2) as initially consulted

4.9 Option two is the simplest option, adopting the draft LAP v2 without any further changes, and with no further consultation. The Committee may be unpersuaded by the arguments of submitters and believe that the draft LAP as it was initially proposed represents its preferred policy.

4.10 The benefit of option two is that it concludes the main policy development work, and the Council can move to notifying the draft LAP as a Provisional LAP for appeals. Council would move a step closer to having an operative LAP which would begin to guide the decisions of the District Licensing Committee (DLC).

4.11 The main risks of option two lie in the appeals stage. Any person who has made a submission on the draft LAP can appeal the Provisional LAP on the grounds that an element of the LAP is unreasonable in light of the object of the Act. Submitters who feel that Council has not correctly assessed and weighed the issues that were raised during consultation, and acted accordingly, could choose to appeal the Provisional LAP to ARLA.

4.12 Adopting the draft LAP v2 (as initially consulted), without making any changes, would not substantially address the issues of preloading, particularly the availability of alcohol from off-licensed premises. It also potentially risks increasing alcohol-related harm, based on the arguments of many submitters who observed during the 2am voluntary trial that violence and alcohol-related harm was not reduced and may have even increased.

Option three – discontinue development of a local alcohol policy

4.13 Option three would see the Council discontinue the development of a local alcohol policy altogether. The Council is not obliged to develop a local alcohol policy, and so it can choose at any stage to discontinue its LAP development.

4.14 Throughout the development of the draft LAP officers have acknowledged the difficulty in meeting the high threshold for good quality local evidence and data to support the policy development process. While this is not taken as evidence of the absence of alcohol-related harm, the lack of local evidence has restricted the scope of the policy that officers are able to recommend. Since the passage of the Act in 2012, many local authorities have been frustrated by the burdens of the process and have either adopted notably weaker policies than were initially formulated or have abandoned their draft policies altogether.

4.15 Option three introduces some risks. Firstly, without an alcohol policy, any alcohol-related harm that a policy might have addressed would continue in the absence of any new restrictions. Secondly, the maximum trading hours for licensed premises would be the default hours in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. For on-licensed premises this would be 8am to 4am, and for off-licensed premises it would be 7am to 11pm. The presence of these maximum trading hours does not guarantee that any applicant would be granted those maximum hours on a licence; the DLC retains discretion to set the maximum trading hours on an individual licence. It should also be noted that during the development of the draft LAP those default national maximum trading hours are already in effect, yet no licence applicant has been granted a licence to trade until 4am.

Recommendation

4.16 Officers recommend option one – approve the draft Statement of Proposal for public consultation. The draft LAP v2 was developed based on the best available evidence and information. The draft LAP v3 builds on that base but has been refined through the consultation process. Approving the Statement of Proposal gives the community an opportunity to express their views on the revised policy, and ensures the Council is fully informed about those views before it makes a final decision.

4.17 Concurrent with making significant changes to the draft policy, the format of the policy has also been changed to make the document simpler, including the removal of the explanatory notes from the draft policy to a separate (but attached) document, following an example from Auckland Council.

4.18 The second notable change is the inclusion of new defined terms: “one-way door restriction” and “exempt person” in recognition of the inclusion in the policy of a one-way door restriction for on-licensed premises.

4.19 If the Committee approves the Statement of Proposal for consultation, then the Statement of Proposal will be designed by Print Synergy (as with the initial draft LAP) for public consultation.

4.20 If the Committee chooses not to approve the draft Statement of Proposal for consultation, then it should consider whether it wishes work to continue on a local alcohol policy. While there are many different permutations to a local alcohol policy the requirement for the policy to be based on high quality local evidence limits the range of options that can be legitimately considered.

5. Conclusion

5.1 In analysing the submissions received on the draft LAP, officers identified a number of changes that it recommended be made to the draft LAP. The scope of those changes necessitates further consultation. Option one, as shown in the report, is recommended.

5.2 While the other two options were considered, officers do not recommend either of those. Adopting the initial draft LAP without any changes – option two – would ignore the valid concerns raised by many submitters. The third option – discontinuing the development of the LAP – is not recommended because abandoning the LAP would leave alcohol-related harm unaddressed and increases the risk that an applicant could be granted a licence to trade until 4am.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Committee approves the Statement of Proposal, then officers will initiate a comprehensive community engagement process.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Officers would use the same approach to consultation as was adopted for the initial draft LAP v2. This includes using the special consultative procedure as required by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2020 but supplemented by a broader community engagement process.

7.2 The Statement of Proposal, including the revised draft LAP, will be published and made available as a printed document at all of Council’s ordinary information points. Notification of the public consultation process will be via public notice in the Manawatū 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 initial draft LAP was consulted on last year. This includes:

· Police

· Public Health (Midcentral DHB)

· 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, Māori Wardens, alcohol and drug counsellors, Best Care Whakapai Hauora, tertiary education providers and student associations, Secondary School Principals Association, Youth One Stop Shop, Restaurant Association).

· Any other person or organisation who made a submission in 2019 on the draft LAP v2.

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 v3. 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 September and will run for approximately five 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 October meeting of the Community Development Committee. 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 the February 2021 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 appeals are received, then the process and timeframe for hearing and resolving those appeals will be determined by ARLA.

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?		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
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 Safe Community Plan The action is: Develop a Local Alcohol Policy (by end of 2020/2021)
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	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.

Attachments

1.	Revised Draft Statement of Proposal - Local Alcohol Policy 2020 ⇩
2.	Summary and Analysis of Submissions on the draft Local Alcohol Policy ⇩

Lorna Johnson (Chairperson)
Rachel Bowen (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Leonie Hapeta
Susan Baty	Billy Meehan
Zulfiqar Butt	Karen Naylor
Renee Dingwall	Bruno Petrenas
Lew Findlay QSM	Aleisha Rutherford
Patrick Handcock ONZM	Danielle Harris