Agenda of Community Committee - Wednesday, 21 May 2025

Community Committee MEETING

21 May 2025

Order of Business

2. Apologies

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.

4. 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.

5. Public Comment

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

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

That the minutes of the Community Committee meeting of 19 March 2025 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

REPORTS

7. Recommendation to engage Sector Lead Organisations Page 11

Memorandum, presented by Ahmed Obaid, Community Development Advisor and Stephanie Velvin, Manager Community Development.

8. Potential locations for a public toilet at Albert St Page 15

Memorandum, presented by Bill Carswell, Activities Manager - Property Services.

9. Annual Youth Wellbeing Update Page 29

Memorandum, presented by Remy Waldteufel-Irvine, Youth Services Team Leader and Stephanie Velvin, Manager Community Development.

10. Community Centres' Delivery Model Review Page 39

Memorandum, presented by Stephanie Velvin, Manager Community Development and Amy Viles, Community Development Advisor.

11. Council Infrastructure accessibility initiatives Page 51

Memorandum, presented by Glen O'Connor, Manager Transport and Development and Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager Parks and Reserves.

12. Accessibility Charter: actions and resources needed for Council to adopt Page 73

Memorandum, presented by Jessica Papple, Marketing Manager and Olivia Wix, Communications Manager.

13. Update on The Ada Street Project Page 137

Memorandum, presented by Danu Sefton, Community Development Advisor and Stephanie Velvin, Manager Community Development.

14. Committee Work Schedule - May 2025 Page 141

15. Karakia Whakamutunga

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 Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 19 March 2025, commencing at 9.02am

Members Present:	Councillor Lorna Johnson (in the Chair) and Councillors Patrick Handcock, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
Members Present Online:	The Mayor (Grant Smith).
Non Members:	Councillor Leonie Hapeta.
Apologies:	The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Leonie Hapeta for early departure.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) was not present when the meeting resumed at 11.07am. He entered the meeting at 11.19am, during consideration of clause 7. He left the meeting at 11.29am, during consideration of clause 7. He was not present for clauses 7 and 8.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta was not present when the meeting resumed at 11.07am. She was not present for clauses 7 and 8.

	Karakia Timatanga
	Councillor Lorna Johnson opened the meeting with karakia.

1-25

Apologies

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 1-25 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lorna Johnson, Patrick Handcock, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood, Kaydee Zabelin and Leonie Hapeta.

2-25

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Community Committee meeting of 4 December 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 2-25 above was carried 11 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Lorna Johnson, Patrick Handcock, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood, Kaydee Zabelin and Leonie Hapeta.

Abstained:

Councillor Brent Barrett.

3-25

Welcoming Communities Annual Report

Memorandum, presented by Somayyeh Ghaffari, Community Development Advisor.

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Welcoming Communities Annual Update’ presented to the Community Committee on 19^th March 2025.

Clause 3-25 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

4-25

Annual Sector Lead Report: Te Tihi o Ruahine Whānau Ora Alliance

Memorandum, presented by Amy Viles, Community Development Advisor and Te Tihi o Ruahine Whānau Ora Alliances’ Mahalia Polson, Kaiwhakamarohi (Project Lead), and Pikihuia Hillman, Pou Herenga (Project Developer).

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Annual Sector Lead Report: Te Tihi o Ruahine Whānau Ora Alliance’ presented to the Community Committee on 19 March 2025.

Clause 4-25 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

5-25

Annual Sector Lead Report: Manawatū Multicultural Council

Memorandum, presented by Ahmed Obaid, Community Development Advisor and The Manawatū Multicultural Councils’ Kanchana Seneviratne, Service Manager, and Yuanindya Inggita, Events & Programme Coordinator.

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Annual Sector Lead Report: Manawatū Multicultural Council’ presented to the Community Committee on 19 March 2025.

Clause 5-25 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

6-25

Annual Sector Lead Report: Te Pū Harakeke - Community Collective Manawatū

Memorandum, presented by Ahmed Obaid, Community Development Advisor and Te Pū Harakeke – Community Collective Manawatūs’ Kim Penny, Chair, and Kat Nguyen, Manager.

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Annual Sector Lead Report: Te Pū Harakeke – Community Collective Manawatū’ presented to the Community Committee on 19 March 2025.

Clause 6-25 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 10.49am.

The meeting resumed at 11.07am.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Leonie Hapeta were not present when the meeting resumed.

7-25

Annual Sector Lead Report: Housing Advice Centre

Memorandum, presented by Ahmed Obaid, Community Development Advisor and Housing Advice Centres’ Jenny Danzell, Committee Secretary and Nigel Fitzpatrick, Service Coordinator.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 11.19am.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 11.29am.

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Annual Sector Lead Report: Housing Advice Centre’ presented to the Community Committee on 19 March 2025.

Clause 7-25 above was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Lorna Johnson, Patrick Handcock, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

8-25

Committee Work Schedule - March 2025

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Community Committee receive its Work Schedule dated March 2025.

Clause 8-25 above was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Lorna Johnson, Patrick Handcock, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

	Karakia Whakamutunga
	Councillor Lorna Johnson closed the meeting with karakia.

The meeting finished at 11.41am.

Confirmed 21 May 2025.

Chair

Memorandum

TO: Community Committee

MEETING DATE: 21 May 2025

TITLE: Recommendation to engage Sector Lead Organisations

Presented By: Ahmed Obaid, Community Development Advisor and Stephanie Velvin, Manager Community Development

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council engage the following organisations through Sector Lead Partnership Agreements for the period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2028:

a. MASH Trust

b. Niuvaka Trust

1. ISSUE

1.2 The Support and Funding Policy 2022 states at Part B, section 12 that staff may make recommendations to Council to engage a Sector Lead organisation through a partnership agreement.

1.3 This memorandum is the mechanism by which staff are putting a recommendation to Council to engage Sector Lead organisations for the period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2028.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Following the recent conclusion of assessments for the Strategic Priority Grants for 2025-2028, staff called for Expressions of Interest for any successful Strategic Priority Grant recipient who wished to be considered for a new Sector Lead Partnership Agreement. Five expressions of interest were received, and staff have assessed that two have demonstrated they meet the criteria.

2.2 The criteria, as per the Support and Funding Policy 2022, include organisations which can demonstrate that they:

· have an acknowledged strategic leadership role within the sector; and

· are a key capacity-building organisation with a ‘sector infrastructure’ role supporting other sector organisations to develop and connect; and

· are a cornerstone provider within their sector delivering the highest level of expertise or highest quality service or experience; and

· have the capability and capacity to think, work, and advocate strategically; and

· are clearly aligned to Council’s strategic outcomes and priorities; and Support and Funding Policy 2022

· have robust strategic and business plans already in place.

2.3 There is no additional funding allocation available through this expression of interest process. The assessment therefore requires organisations to demonstrate they already meet all the criteria to be acknowledged as a sector leader; this is not a commissioning process for new work.

2.4 The two organisations who have been identified as meeting the criteria are MASH Trust and Niuvaka Trust.

2.5 MASH Trust is a long-standing social service organisation which covers a broad range of support services. Through the Strategic Priority Grants assessment process for 2025-2028, MASH Trust were allocated funding of $55,000 per annum, primarily to support the delivery of the LUCK Venue, which is a safe space in the city centre for people who are experiencing complex challenges, such as with mental health and housing insecurity. In their expression of interest, MASH Trust demonstrated that they meet all the criteria of sector leadership; a particular strength is their strategic planning and proactive leadership of community solutions.

2.6 Niuvaka Trust, despite being a relatively new organisation, have developed a strong programme of delivery focused on community health, social services and cultural advocacy. Through the Strategic Priority Grants assessment process, Niuvaka Trust were allocated $25,000 per annum, primarily to support social services and cultural activities in support of Pasifika communities. In their expression of interest, Niuvaka Trust demonstrated that they meet all the criteria of sector leadership; a particular strength is the strong strategic networks and relationships they have developed.

2.7 If approved, MASH Trust and Niuvaka Trust will join six other existing Sector Lead organisations. These existing organisations include: Te Pū Harakeke – Community Services Council, Manawatū Multicultural Council, Te Tihi o Ruahine Whānau Ora Alliance, Environment Network Manawatū, Square Edge Community Arts, Creative Sounds (The Stomach).

2.8 Staff are therefore recommending that Council engages both MASH Trust and Niuvaka Trust in Sector Lead Partnership Agreements to commence 1 July 2025.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 Should Council choose to proceed, customised Partnership Agreements will be developed for each Sector Lead, based on the goals and activities identified through the Strategic Priority Grant application and assessment process. They will also include a requirement to continue to demonstrate the Sector Lead criteria and a requirement for an annual report to the relevant committee of Council, in this case the Community Committee for both.

4. 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 objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 7. Mahere tautāwhi hapori 7. Community Support Plan The objective is: Support for-purpose organisations and communities of interest, and deliver programmes to promote community wellbeing Provide funding to for-purpose organisations, local communities and communities of interest through: - Community Development Small Grants Fund - Community-led Initiatives Fund - Occupancy of Council-owned property subsidy - Strategic Priority Grants (including support for sector leadership) - Subsidy of community facility development costs
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Sector Lead organisations have been assessed as key contributors to Council’s strategic direction, which seeks to enhance the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the community.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Community Committee

MEETING DATE: 21 May 2025

TITLE: Potential locations for a public toilet at Albert St

Presented By: Bill Carswell, Activities Manager - Property Services

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council proceed with applying for a planning and building consent for the installation of a single pan toilet at the end of Albert Street.

1. Issue

1.1 To meet public demand for a toilet option at the Albert Street River entrance, a single pan public toilet is proposed for the end of Albert Street within the road reserve. There is some opposition to this location voiced by residents.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 At its meeting on 28 August 2024, the Community Committee considered a report on the plan for a public toilet to serve the Manawatu River Park at the bottom of Albert Street.

2.2 The report recommended proceeding with a toilet. Councillors wished to explore alternate locations and instructed:

“That the Chief Executive re-explore the construction location options to find a viable alternative location (Option 3).” (Resolution 15-24)

3. Analysis of Locations

3.1 Location “A,” Albert Street - as marked on the map below, was the originally proposed location, which the local residents raised opposition to.

3.2 In response to the Committee’s direction to investigate alternate options, locations “B”, “C” and “D”, depicted in figure 1 (below), were assessed by officers.

Figure 1: Toilet locations options closer and existing public toilets within 1500 metres

Location A: END OF Albert Street – feasibility assessments

3.3 In October 2024, the Council Three Waters Team investigated the existing 132-meter-long old sewer pipe and advised that it was unable to provide sewer services to the toilet in the originally proposed location, "A," as marked on Figure One.

Figure 2: Albert Street Sewer Line assessment

3.4 As a result of this advice, price estimates were obtained for four different options listed below to address the existing sewer connection issues discovered at the originally identified location “A”:

· Option 1: Single-pan, fully flushing accessible toilet with all service connections (sewer main replacement)

· Option 2: Single-pan, fully flushing accessible toilet with all service connections (installation of a residential-type sewer pump station)

· Option 3: Single-pan, flushing accessible toilet (no sewer connection, but with a holding tank

· Option 4: Single-pan, dry/waterless accessible toilet.

3.5 Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the Albert Street location.

Figure 3: Aerial view of End of Albert Street location

Figure 4: Ground view of End of Albert Street location

Figure 5: Ground view from the End of Albert Street location facing the road

3.6 Table 1 sets out the cost of each option for provision of a toilet at Albert St river entrance.

Cost Estimates for Different Types of Toilets in the Originally Identified Location "A" – End of Albert Street
Description		Option 1 Fully flushing all services. (sewer main replaced)	Option 2 Fully flushing toilet all services (residential pump station)	Option 3 Flushing toilet wastewater holding tank (no sewer connection)	Option 4 Dry Vault/ waterless toilet
CAPEX	Water/sewer/service connections onsite (180 m)	$ 562,380	$ 219,338	$ 78,000	$ 48,338
	Toilet design/build/transport	$ 76,000	$ 76,000	$ 76,000	$ 76,000
	Contractor's Margin 10%	$ 21,933	$ 21,933	$ 7,800	$ 4,833
	Contingency 20%	$ 132,062	$ 62,000	$ 32,000	$ 26,000
	Project Management	$ 40,000	$ 35,000	$ 20,000	$ 15,000
	Total Estimated CAPEX	$ 832,375	$ 414,271	$ 213,800	$ 170,171

Table 1: Location A – End of Albert Street Toilet serving options costs

Location b: mIDDLE OF Manawatū Golf Course bOUNDARY

3.7 Figures 6 and 7 show location B – being midway along the Golf Club Boundary.

Figure 6: Aerial view of Middle of Manawatū Golf Club Boundary location

Figure 7: Ground view of Middle of Manawatū Golf Club Boundary location

3.8 Table 2 provides an estimate of costs for Location B.

Cost Estimates for Different Types of Toilets in Location "B" – Middle of Manawatū Golf Club
Description		Option 1 Fully flushing toilet with all services	Option 2 Flushing toilet with a wastewater holding tank (no sewer connection)	Option 3 Dry Vault/ waterless toilet
CAPEX	Water/ sewer/service connections onsite (600 m away)	$ 1,676,220	$ 78,000	$ 48,338
	Toilet design/build/transport to the site	$ 76,000	$ 76,000	$ 76,000
	Contractor's Margin 10%	$ 21,933	$ 7,800	$ 4,833
	Contingency - 20%	$ 354,000	$ 32,000	$ 26,000
	Project Management	$ 40,000	$ 20,000	$ 15,000
	Total Estimated CAPEX	$ 2,168,153	$ 213,800	$ 170,171

Table 2: Location B – Middle of Manawatū Golf Club Boundary Toilet serving options costs

Location B - Constraints/issues

· Located on the river side of the stop bank, which means it would be at risk of being affected from flood events.

· The position could vary but we have assumed closer to the stopbank to reduce flood risk. The Regional Council has provided an early indication this location will present resource consent concerns.

· The location in the trees is not best practice from a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) approach. This could be improved by removing the trees through to the river path^{^[1]} but it would remain relatively hidden.

· There are no service connections (such as water, wastewater, electricity, etc.) available near the identified location.

· Service and power provision are 600 m away and would be expensive to connect.

· The holding tank (Option 3) and dry/waterless toilet (Option 4) at this location may present issues such as odour during the summer season, which users may complain about.

· Both the holding tank (Option 3) and dry/waterless toilet (Option 4) would need to be emptied multiple times a year depending on usage.

Advantages and opportunities

· Closer to the adventure play area under the pine trees.

· Better overall toilet distribution along the river path is achieved through option B than option C or D. Toilets would be at 1,200 m spacings under this option.

Location C - WesT end of Manawatu GolF Course

3.9 Figures 8 and 9 show Location C, at the western end of the golf course, on golf course land.

Figure 8: Aerial view of West End of Manawatū Golf Club location

Figure 9: Ground view of West End of the Manawatū Golf Club

Cost Estimates for Different Types of Toilets in Location "C" – West End of Manawatū Golf Club
Description		Option 1 Fully flushing toilet with all services	Option 2 Flushing toilet with a wastewater holding tank (no sewer connection)	Option 3 Dry Vault/ waterless toilet (Tank capacity 3,000 Ltr)
CAPEX	Water/sewer/service connections onsite (90 m)	$ 323,700	$ 78,000	$ 48,338
	Toilet design/build/transport to the site	$ 76,000	$ 76,000	$ 76,000
	Contractor's Margin 10%	$ 21,933	$ 7,800	$ 4,833
	Accessible Ramp over the stop bank & path connection	$ 265,000	$ 265,000	$ 265,000
	Contingency - 20%	$ 134,000	$ 82,000	$ 74,000
	Project Management	$ 40,000	$ 40,000	$ 40,000
	Total Estimated CAPEX	$ 860,633	$ 548,800	$ 508,171

Table 3: Location C –West End of Manawatū Golf Club Toilet serving options costs

Constraints/ issues

· Location C is located on the Golf Club side of the stop bank, which could also present challenges from an accessibility point of view.

· An accessible ramp is required, which would be expensive to build.

· Toilet will be hidden behind the stop bank in a relatively remote part of the golf course land. May have higher risk of vandalism or other anti-social behaviour than Albert Street option for both the toilet itself and the golf course.

· Hidden location behind the stop bank not best practice from a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) consideration. Higher safety risks than Location A.

· There are no service connections (such as water, wastewater, electricity, etc.) available near the identified location.

· Service and power provision is 220 metres away and would be expensive to connect.

· The holding tank (Option 2) and dry/waterless toilet (Option 3) at this location may present issues such as odour during the summer season, which residents may complain about.

· Both the holding tank (Option 2) and dry/waterless toilet (Option 3) would need to be emptied multiple times a year depending on usage.

· Path connection to the toilet from the river path would be 70 m long costing $30,000, including some tree removal^{^[2]}.

Advantages and opportunities

· Located on MGC land so vandalism and antisocial behaviour may be mitigated by ‘passive surveillance’, though being hidden behind a stop bank at this location is also a risk.

Location D - Willowbank Reserve river entrance

3.10 Figures 10 and 11 show Location D at the Willowbank Reserve River entrance.

Figure 10: Aerial view of Willowbank Reserve River Entrance location

Figure 11: Ground view of Willowbank Reserve River Entrance location

3.11 Table 4 provides an estimate of costs at Location D.

Cost Estimates for Different Types of Toilets in Location "D" – Willowbank Reserve River Entrance
Description		Option 1 Fully flushing toilet with all services	Option 2 Flushing toilet with a wastewater holding tank (no sewer connection)	Option 3 Dry Vault/ waterless toilet
CAPEX	Water/sewer/service connections (220 m away)	$ 668,460	$ 78,000	$ 48,338
	Toilet design/build/transport to the site	$ 76,000	$ 76,000	$ 76,000
	Contractor's Margin 10%	$ 21,933	$ 7,800	$ 4,833
	Contingency 20%	$ 152,000	$ 32,000	$ 26,000
	Project Management	$ 25,000	$ 15,000	$ 10,000
	Total Estimated CAPEX	$ 943,393	$ 208,800	$ 165,171

Table 4: Location D – Willowbank Reserve River Entrance Toilet serving options costs

Constrains/ issues

· There are no service connections (such as water, wastewater, electricity, etc.) available near the identified location.

· Service and power provision are 220 m away and would be expensive to connect.

· The holding tank (Option 2) and dry/waterless toilet (Option 3) at this location may present issues such as odour during the summer season, which residents may complain about.

· Both the holding tank (Option 2) and dry/waterless toilet (Option 3) would need to be emptied multiple times a year depending on usage.

· In the floodplain and expected to have significant consenting risk as water moves quickly through this space in a flood, as evidenced by past damage to paths in this location.

· Much lower use levels that Albert Street entrance as it will not cater to those using the gravel beaches or adventure play areas near in the pine forest being 800m to 1 km away.

· Poor spacing compared to Options A and B being 2.3 km from the existing toilet at the Fitzherbert Bridge and 650 m from the existing toilet at Waterloo Park/Hokowhitu Scout Hall.

Advantages and opportunities

· Small carpark at Willowbank Reserve adds value as start/end of trip location – toilet could be located there to remove consenting risk.

· Good visibility and safety.

4. LOCation comparison:

4.1 Table 5 summarises the costs and 3 criteria for considering the location – use levels, likelihood of obtaining approvals and safety considerations.

Location	Estimated Cost (CAPEX)				Use levels	Consent	Safety
Location	Fully flushing toilet all services	Fully flushing toilet all services (pump station)	Flushing toilet waste holding tank (no sewer connection)	Dry Vault/ waterless toilet	Use levels	Consent	Safety
A – End of Albert St	$831,993	$417,198	$213,180	$170,688	High	Easy to moderate	Good
B – Middle of Golf Club boundary	$2,170,716	NA	$213,180	$170,688	Moderate	In flood plain	Hidden
C – Golf Club – western end over stopbank	$845,914	NA	$543,180	$498,488	Lower - Close to Fitz Bridge toilet, not at start/end trip location	Consent for stop bank crossing	Hidden
D – Willowbank Reserve entrance	$944,893	NA	$209,800	$168,171	Lower – close to	Green if on Willowbank	Good

Table 5: Location/Cost Comparison

5. Funding available

5.1 Programme 161 New City-wide Toilets allows for $270,000 in 2024/25 to be carried forward to 2025/26.

5.2 Programme 161 New City-wide Toilets allows for $204,000 in 2025/26.

5.3 Therefore $474,000 is available to deliver this project.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The alternate locations investigated were deemed to be less favourable than the originally identified option at the End of Albert Street when costs, safety, achieving a useful distribution of toilets along the path network, and approval aspects were considered and compared.

6.2 The investigation into the services for the road reserve location originally proposed, at the bottom of Albert Street, has been completed. The infrastructure in this location would need to be replaced if a plumbed flushing toilet was installed. This increases the cost of providing this type of toilet in this location.

6.3 If Council views that an extra toilet is still required along the river pathway, it is recommended that Option A is progressed at the end of Albert Street, with the recommended construction method being a residential grade sewer pump and required repairs to the sewer line (Option 3 in Table 1) as it represents the optimal solution within the allocated budget envelope.

6.4 This toilet will require using two years of Programme 161 budget.

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 objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 2: He tāone whakaihiihi, tapatapahi ana Goal 2: A creative and exciting city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 6. Mahere rēhia 6. Recreation and Play Plan The objective is:
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Constructing new public toilet at the end of Albert Street will ensure there is a clean, accessible and gender-neutral public toilet for the Manawatū River Park. New toilets are developed in the most popular locations to meet demand of the public.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Community Committee

MEETING DATE: 21 May 2025

TITLE: Annual Youth Wellbeing Update

Presented By: Remy Waldteufel-Irvine, Youth Services Team Leader and Stephanie Velvin, Manager Community Development

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

RECOMMENDATION TO Community Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Annual Youth Wellbeing Update’ presented to the Community Committee on 21 May 2025.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council have requested an annual update on youth wellbeing activities.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 With its range of tertiary education options and family friendly lifestyle, Palmerston North remains one of the youngest cities in New Zealand, with an average age of 35.7, compared to a national median of 38.1. 21.6% of the city is aged between 10 and 24.

Graph 1. 5 year age groups in Palmerston North vs New Zealand, Census 2023, Stats NZ

2.2 The Oranga Papaioea City Strategy 2024-2034, and related Plans, outline a range of areas in which Council is delivering services directly for this demographic, including the provision of Youth Space, with programming and a youth focused library collection, facilitation of youth leadership programmes including Youth Council and Tuia, provision of funding for youth-led initiatives and youth scholarships, and coordination activities within the youth services sector.

2.3 In November 2023, the Community Committee resolved:

‘That the establishment of a specific Youth Well-being Plan be referred to the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.

That officers facilitate a youth well-being forum in early 2024 and complete a sector wide scan of youth focused programmes and or initiatives within the city and identify any strategic or service gaps that can be used to inform the development of the Youth Well-being Plan.

That officers provide a report to the Community Committee before the Long-Term Plan deliberations, on the finding of the sector wide scan, with associated recommendations and resource implications.’

2.4 Subsequently, in May 2024, Officers presented a memorandum to Council which summarised the findings and insights from the first Youth Well-being Forum, held in April 2024, and presented analysis from a sector wide scan of youth focused programmes, initiatives and services.

2.5 Later in May 2024, as part of the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 deliberations, Council resolved:

‘That Council create a new programme for youth wellbeing of $33.3k (excluding inflation) to support youth well-being for each of years 1,2 and 3 of the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034, specifically to create a youth development reference group, fund an annual youth well-being forum, and provide a pilot quick response youth development fund’, and

‘That the Chief Executive provide a youth wellbeing and youth development progress report annually’.

2.6 This report provides the first annual update on the progress of the youth wellbeing programme, including trends, new initiatives and activities of the last twelve months, and a summary of the Annual Youth Wellbeing Forum 2025. Next steps and focus areas for the coming year are also highlighted.

3. Annual update

Palmerston North’s youth sector has continued to innovate and connect through a challenging period of change and increased demand

3.1 In line with national trends, the youth sector in Palmerston North has experienced a period of significant change. Funding changes, workforce turnover and increasing demand for services has created a challenging environment for the sector, with many organisations reducing back to core services in order to keep their doors open and prioritise effort towards immediate needs.

3.2 This instability is also reflected in the increase in Palmerston North’s NEET rate^{^[3]}, which has climbed to a ten-year high of 15.2% at December 2024.

Graph 2. NEET rate Palmerston North versus New Zealand, 2015 to 2024, from Infometrics.

3.3 There are several concurrent factors driving this increase:

· The drop-off of young people engaged in schooling post-Covid is having a flow on effect in the numbers of young people engaged in further education and training, and therefore having the skills needed for employment.

· Young people are increasingly presenting as less able to engage and stay focussed, and there are increased incidents of disruption and challenging behaviour in schools.

· Alongside this, the challenging economic environment is resulting in more young people staying at home to look after younger siblings as parents work, and families are working longer hours to meet basic needs and therefore are less able to be present to support their children to attend school or work opportunities.

· Further, young people continue to bear the brunt of a weaker labour market, as they are highly exposed to industries affected by lower discretionary spending such as retail, hospitality and construction; young people are competing with adults for the same opportunities, and, anecdotally, employers appear to be preferring an unskilled adult, who may be perceived to have lower training or pastoral care needs, even compared to a semi-skilled or skilled young person.

3.4 While these challenges are complex and ongoing, there have been positive developments in the sector locally over this period, with new collective impact and cross-sector collaborations producing stronger relationships, particularly with kaimahi and organisations newer to the sector, and positive early outcomes for young people.

Council’s existing youth services have continued to deliver positive outcomes for young people, despite challenges

3.5 The above-mentioned trends have been reflected in the nature of visitations to Youth Space over this period, with an increase of young people visiting the facility who are facing complex challenges. In addition to the disengagement in education and employment, Officers have noted an increase in young people presenting with substance abuse challenges, mental health challenges and challenging relationship dynamics. In response, over this period Officers have prioritised programming in these areas, strengthened relationships with relevant support services, and focused on promoting clear pathways for young people facing these challenges.

3.6 Despite these complexities, Officers have continued to deliver a high quality of service at Youth Space, opening five days a week, with regular programming and activities suited to a wide range of rangatahi.

3.7 Over the last twelve months, Youth Space has had over 35,000 visits from young people to engage in programmes, seek youth worker support and meet new people in a safe space. Highlights of this period have included a range of engaging activities co-designed with young people, weekly visits from alternative education providers, and collaborative activities with other local organisations, such as SuperGrans who run regular cooking skills sessions.

3.8 Through these initiatives and programmes, Officers have seen hundreds of young people develop new life and social skills, improve their sense of connection and identity, and increase their confidence to participate in community.

3.9 Strengthening support for youth leadership programming has also been a focus over this period, with Officers walking alongside Youth Council to recruit eight new members and commence a process to realign their purpose as a group. One aspiration of Youth Council this year is to host a youth expo to bring young people together to discuss their aspirations and needs. It is anticipated that this would complement and help shape the discussions at the next annual Youth Wellbeing Forum in 2026.

3.10 Officers also selected two exceptional rangatahi Māori for participation in the Tuia programme for 2025.

Several new initiatives have developed with good early success

3.11 Beyond Youth Space and leadership programming, and in response to some of the new connections and themes raised at the 2024 forum, Officers have facilitated and supported a number of new initiatives within the youth sector over this period. Highlights have included Kick for the Seagulls, the Pounamu Project, and a NeuroConnect Group:

3.12 Kick for the Seagulls is a 17-week programme, originally created by Sir Graham Lowe for prisons, which provides an avenue for students to achieve NCEA Level 1 and 2 in Literacy and Numeracy through the language of sport. The pilot programme in Palmerston North started November 2024, as a partnership between Council, UCOL and YCentral’s Rangatahi Ora programme. The inaugural programme was very successful with 8 out of 10 participants completing the course and graduating with NCEA Level 1 or 2, and many continuing with further UCOL courses. With the support of Council’s new quick response youth development fund, a second cohort is underway with another 9 participants due for graduation mid-year.

3.13 The Pounamu Project is a collect impact initiative guided by the whakatāuki Ahakoa he Iti pounamu (Although it is small, it is a treasured). The Project is designed to create a space where youth workers and organisations in the youth sector can connect, collaborate and learn from each other. Council has a coordinating role, alongside other organisations including Youthline and Sport Manawatū. The group is organising regular networking hui to strengthen relationships, particularly with those new to the sector.

3.14 Accessibility for neurodiverse young people was identified as a challenge at the 2024 forum. In response, Midcentral DHB, with the support of Youth Space, have developed NeuroConnect Group, for neurodiverse young people to have the opportunity for social connection in a safe space. Weekly drop-in sessions are held at Youth Space, where young people come together, along with their kaimahi, to develop friendships in a welcoming and inclusive environment. Feedback to the initiative has been positive, with the participants growing their confidence to connect with people and spaces which they might not have otherwise.

The need for a Youth Development Reference Group has changed

3.15 The intent for the creation of a Youth Development Reference Group, as per the May 2024 resolution, was to bring the sector together more regularly to strengthen connections and maximise opportunities for collaboration.

3.16 As noted above, in this period since May 2024, the local youth sector landscape has shifted with several new cross-sector collaborations and collective impact groups having formed or strengthened.

3.17 Officers work with Youth Council in realigning this programme is also intended to create better pathways for youth voice to contribute to collective impact work.

3.18 Therefore, given the need is being addressed in other ways, Officers have not progressed an additional grouping in this period, rather have focused efforts and resourcing towards coordination and support of the other groups, including the Pounamu Project, a collective organising group for the Youth Forum, and others. Officers intend to continue this approach in the coming year.

Another successful Youth Wellbeing Forum was held and has provided a plan of action for the coming year

3.19 The Annual Youth Wellbeing Forum 2025 was held on 4^th April, attended by 80 people from 46 youth related services.

Image 3. Participants at the Annual Youth Wellbeing Forum 2025

3.20 As in 2024, this year’s forum gave participants and Officers the opportunity to understand the aspirations and barriers for organisations delivering youth wellbeing outcomes in the city.

3.21 Many of the themes of the 2024 forum continued through this year’s discussions, with one new theme emerging around the need to develop a stronger collective identity and a shared vision for the local sector.

3.22 The 2025 forum themes and next steps are summarised below:

Theme	Commentary	Action Plan
Connecting the sector	· Youth work is relational, and this drives the need for a well-connected sector · There is a demand for more in person connection points and networking opportunities for services · Services are well connected to established and historic referral pathways, however connections with newer services and kaimahi are still being established · Many sub-networks exist within the sector that need to connect better with each other	· Continue to support and promote Pounamu Project. Once established, this network could be further developed to respond to other emerging sector needs, such as training. · Continue to establish relationships with newer services and people, and facilitate connections · Establish clearer connections and communication between sub-networks within the sector
Continuous improvement	· Mentorship opportunities are a vehicle to exchange institutional knowledge, networks and connection between kaimahi and organisations across the sector. · There is a need for increased training opportunities and increased visibility of training opportunities for kaimahi.	· Explore ways to increase mentorship opportunities, i.e. via the Pounamu Project · Engage with people currently promoting training to improve communication pathways · Continue to advocate to training bodies in the sector to ensure relevant and timely training offerings are delivered locally · Improve access to Council’s training fund by the sector
Sustainability of workforce	· Higher turnover and burnout are present in the industry · Supporting new youth workers to the sector is important · There is a need for increased access to supervision for the safe and sustained practise of frontline workers · Connectivity and networking are also important to reduce isolation, improve workload boundaries and enhance efficiency	· Continue to deliver annual forums · Continue to support and promote Pounamu Project. · Explore ways to reduce cost barriers for supervision
Funding criteria / priorities	· Funding models need to be more responsive, flexible, to meet emerging needs and promote collaborative solutions quickly · Funding criteria can empower or disempower joined up work	· Continue to model and develop Council’s funding practice towards greater flexibility and responsiveness · Engage with funding partners to discuss solutions
Directory of services	· The sector wants a better tool to support connections and referrals, but there were varying views about the best way to deliver this, and the role this might have in practice	· Investigate options for tools, and work with sector partners to better understand the needs and priorities
Workforce identity	· The sector wants to develop a stronger collective identity with a shared vision, i.e. ‘[Palmerston North] leads the country in youth development’. · There is a desire to acknowledge the strong history of youth development in Palmerston North	· Engage with sector leaders to explore this further, with a view to workshopping and finalising this at the 2026 forum

3.23 In conclusion, in the face of significant and increasing challenges being faced by young people and the sector, Palmerston North is continuing to find new ways to work together to improve outcomes. While indicators are not yet improving at a population level, this year has demonstrated that an increased focus on collaboration and innovation, with enhanced support by Council, has strong potential to create substantial impacts for the wellbeing of young people and the sector moving forward.

4. next steps

4.1 Officers will continue to deliver activities, services and programmes to promote youth wellbeing, and will continue to support new initiatives and aspirations within the youth sector in a coordinating role.

4.2 The next annual youth wellbeing update will be presented to Council in mid-2026.

5 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 objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 2: He tāone whakaihiihi, tapatapahi ana Goal 2: A creative and exciting city Whāinga 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 7. Mahere tautāwhi hapori 7. Community Support Plan The objective is: Support for-purpose organisations and communities of interest, and deliver programmes to promote community wellbeing.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	A strong youth sector which supports young people to thrive will contribute social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing benefits now and into the future.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Community Committee

MEETING DATE: 21 May 2025

TITLE: Community Centres' Delivery Model Review

Presented By: Stephanie Velvin, Manager Community Development and Amy Viles, Community Development Advisor

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

RECOMMENDATION TO Community Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Community Centres’ Delivery Model Review’ presented to the Community Committee on 21 May 2025.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The memorandum presents the findings of the Community Centres’ Delivery Model Review. The purpose of the review is to understand the strengths and opportunities within the current community centres delivery model, to guide improvements in future service provision, resource allocation, and overall strategic alignment.

2. BACKGROUND

Council context

2.1 The review is an action included in the Mahere Tautāwhi Hapori Community Support Plan, within Council’s Oranga Papaioea City Strategy for the 2024-2034 Long-Term Plan.

2.2 The review was recommended within Council’s Community Spaces Research Report, presented in September 2022, which delivered a city-wide stocktake and needs assessment of community facilities to develop a coordinated plan to respond to community requests for community facilities and to inform future decision-making on the provision of community facilities.

2.3 The need for this Community Centres’ Delivery Model review was further established through the Community Spaces feasibility study conducted in 2023, which investigated the needs for community facilities in the suburbs of Awapuni and Highbury, and to support the Pasifika and Multicultural communities; one of the findings was that there are opportunities to improve the management of existing community centres.

2.4 Council provision of community centres is incorporated into the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 and contributes to all four of our strategic goals.

In particular, the provision of community centres contributes to the following outcomes of the Community Support Plan:

· access to services and facilities that are inclusive and appropriate for community needs;

· access to safe and accessible community places; and

· support for community to live healthy lives.

2.5 In the current Long-Term Plan 2024-2034, Council also has planned for the development or expansion of the following community facilities: Multicultural Community Hub, Pasifika Community Hub, Awapuni Community Library Hub, Roslyn Community Hub and Te Pātikitiki Library in Highbury.

2.6 Council’s provision of community centres is framed in the Support and Funding Policy 2022.

Current delivery model - overview

2.7 Council has nine community centres in Palmerston North located in the villages of Ashhurst and Bunnythorpe and the suburbs of Awapuni, Highbury, Kelvin Grove, Milson, Roslyn, Terrace End and Westbrook.

2.8 There is not a uniform approach to the provision of community centres. The origins of each community centre are diverse, and the day-to-day management of each community centre is determined by each management committee in response to their individual constitutions and in service of the needs of their user groups.

2.9 These community centres provide bookable spaces for local communities to connect with each other and engage in a wide range of social, recreational, cultural and educational activities. The centres cater to a range of regular user groups (usually community groups who meet periodically for a shared purpose, for example tai chi, gardening, craft groups or other wellbeing initiatives) and casual user groups (one off meetings, social gatherings, or cultural events).

2.10 Booking data shows there were over 9000 individuals who used the centres across the city in the month of February 2025.

Current delivery model – community role

2.11 Eight of the community centres are managed by a community centre committee or board (as either a registered Charitable Trust or an Incorporated Society) whose specific function is the management of the centre. Each of these community centre management committees:

· operate independently from each other;

· hold a lease agreement with Council that outlines the terms and conditions of their tenancy with Council for the community centre; and

· hold a management agreement with Council that outlines their role in carrying out the day-to-day management of the community centre.

2.12 Six community centres are unstaffed (no paid coordinator role at the location on a day-to-day basis for set open hours of operation), including: Palmerston North Community Leisure Centre, Village Valley Centre, Milson, Awapuni, Rangiora and Kelvin Grove Community Centres.

2.13 Highbury Whānau Centre functions as a for-purpose social service, providing alternative education and support services for rangatahi, with additional bookable availability, and is staffed during the workday by an Administrator role.

2.14 The current function of the Pasifika Centre (formerly Westbrook Community Centre) is to serve the Pasifika community through a range of initiatives and contracts. There is a contracted Connector role that is based at the centre to support the delivery of these contracts; the centre also has bookable availability for the wider community.

2.15 The Village Valley Centre in Ashhurst does not have a community-based management committee and is instead currently supported and managed by Ashhurst Community Library staff as the point of contact for bookings.

2.16 With the exception of the Village Valley Centre, funds generated by the hire of each community centre are held by the management committee for the day-to-day operation and promotion of the centre and its activities, and to support local community-led development initiatives.

Current delivery model – Council role

2.17 Council provides maintenance and renewals through the Property team for the community centres, as outlined in each lease agreement and in-line with annual budgets.

2.18 Council’s Asset Management Plan outlines the plan for investing in our facilities (including community centres) now and in the future, and includes details on our levels of service, operational planning and monitoring of asset condition and performance.

2.19 Council also provides support by way of a Community Development Advisor, as a point of contact with Council, who supports each management committee to provide a community centre that is responsive to the needs of the community and fulfils the requirements of the Management Agreement.

2.20 As noted above, the Village Valley Centre in Ashhurst is supported and managed by Ashhurst Community Library staff as the point of contact for bookings and has no community committee.

2.21 The Awapuni Community Centre Committee also currently receives additional support from the Awapuni Community Librarian, who attends committee meetings and provides a community library lens, helpful for committee decision-making.

Non-Council owned community centre provision

2.22 There are several non-Council owned community centre type facilities operating across the city, which were not included in the scope of this review but are noted below for context:

a. Hokowhitu Village Centre - receives some of the same resourcing provision from Council, including support of a Community Development Advisor point of contact. Council also holds the lease for the building on their behalf. The centre provides a similar function to a Council community centre and also operates a small successful community library, servicing the suburb of Hokowhitu where there is no other community centre provision from Council.

b. Longburn Community Centre - given the location and relative inaccessibility of the Longburn Community Centre it appears to have relatively low utilisation, however, Council understands Longburn School provides the primary community hub for the village via their school hall.

c. Linton Community Centre - is a provision of the New Zealand Defence Force.

3. REVIEW PRocess

3.1 The purpose of the review is to understand the strengths and opportunities within the community centres’ delivery model to guide improvements in future service provision, resource allocation, and overall strategic alignment.

3.2 A mixed methods approach was undertaken to gather information to understand how well the current model meets community needs and fulfils the intended purpose, and to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of the model overall. Information gathering included:

· A community survey which resulted in over 220 respondents.

· A survey of user groups of all community centres.

· Stakeholder interviews with community centre management committees.

· Wider Council staff were interviewed for feedback from a Council support perspective.

· Desktop review of recent relevant reports, including:

o The 2022 Community Places Research Report

o The 2023 Feasibility Study for Palmerston North City Council Community Libraries/Hubs and Community Centres

o The Roslyn Community Hub Report (not published at the time of writing this report; to be presented to Council meeting on 7^th May).

4. Findings

4.1 The review established that the current community centres’ model is largely working well, with overall high utilisation, high levels of user and community satisfaction, good working relationships in place between Council and management committees, and a good variety of facilities available.

4.2 The community survey undertaken demonstrated users of centres rated their experience highly across a range of measures:

How would you rate your experience?	% of respondents who rated this measure highly or very highly
Cleanliness of the facility	85
Finding information about the centre before you booked	83
Getting access to the centre at the time of your booking	89
Locking up / leaving the centre after your booking	88
Making the booking	83
Overall quality of the facility	88
Quality of any equipment used within the facility	84
Value for money	86

Table 1. Community survey responses to the question ‘how would you rate your experience’

4.3 Three areas of strength identified in the review are detailed below.

1. The management committee-based structure remains an effective way of managing our current community centres

4.4 Stable and sustainable committees are crucial to the success of the current delivery model. The review highlighted the considerable commitment demonstrated by management committees, whose members are often representative of a user group and volunteering their time to the effective running of the community centres.

4.5 Committee members acknowledge that they benefit from the use of their community centre, however, without exception, all committees are operating above and beyond expectations in the time and effort they contribute towards the effective operation of the community centres.

4.6 While there are some areas for development as identified below, the review has confirmed that the community-led management committees are generally providing operations that are meeting the needs of regular and casual users.

4.7 Staff note that the volunteer contribution within this model helps to enable Council to provide community facilities in an affordable way.

4.8 Overall feedback from the wider community survey further demonstrates that the community centres are highly valued by the communities they serve, with 88% of respondents reporting they are likely or very likely to recommend community centres to friends or family.

Graph 1. Community survey responses to the question ‘how likely are you to recommend the community centre to friends or family?

2. Most community members appreciate the variety of the facility options across the city

4.9 This review has shown that the current model provides the opportunity for most groups looking for a facility to find a centre that meets their needs. It is, however, important to note that as each centre has different features (including maximum occupancy), user groups often need to travel outside of their neighbourhood location to utilise a community centre appropriate for their needs.

3. Management committees have good opportunities to connect with each other and Council

4.10 Feedback gathered shows that the biannual community centre committee gatherings facilitated by Council staff are valued by both management committees and Council staff, as they enable relationships between different community centres to be fostered, with valuable networking and knowledge sharing opportunities for the progression of shared outcomes. There is, however, more scope to include enhanced strategic planning across centre committees, as detailed below.

4.11 Further, with key points of contact within Council identified for each committee, the support and responsiveness of Council staff to issues raised by managements committees working well.

4.12 While there were strengths identified in the current model as outlined above, the review also identified aspects of our community centres’ operation where there is room for improvement.

4.13 The community survey demonstrated 20% of respondents had tried to book a community centre in the past but had not proceeded with their booking due to a range of perceived barriers. As outlined below, the most common reason given for not booking a centre was availability. Other common barriers were cost, suitability of room types, difficulty with the booking process, and cost.

Graph 2. Community survey responses, of respondents who identified that they did not proceed with a community centre booking, in answer to the question ‘what prevented you from booking?’. Note respondents could select more than one answer.

4.14 Key areas of improvement identified in the review are detailed in the table below:

Finding

Detail

Actions for improvement

Accessibility - some community members do not know about community centres

Some demographic groups are less likely to use the facilities (i.e. maximum occupancy does not allow for very large cultural celebrations)

Some groups do not feel the community centres have the spaces and facilities they want or need, or could not easily find key information about centres

Develop a shared marketing plan, including Council and management committee actions, to better inform the community about the centres

NB: Some issues with accessibility/availability for cultural gatherings will be mitigated by the Multicultural and Pasifika Hubs developments.

Availability – some community members have found it hard to book centres

Community centres are more difficult to book than Council would like

Availability for use is competitive at popular times/days of the week

User groups not proactively cancelling unneeded bookings prevents some casual usage

Limited spare capacity for new and regular user groups

Different centres have different booking officer processes and capacity

Implement enhanced booking system to increase ease of booking and awareness of community centre options

Develop improved booking guidelines for management committees to improve equity of access and consistency

Support installation of keyless entry across all centres

NB: Some availability issues could be mitigated by the planned Community Hub developments

Affordability – a small number of community members view cost as a barrier for accessing community centres

Community centres are not deemed to be affordable by some

Variable pricing exists across centres

Work with community centres to develop booking fee guidelines to ensure improved consistency in fees for both regular and casual users across centres, particularly for facilities with similar provision of services.

Functionality – some users expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of centres and technology available

Variable availability of Wi-Fi access and technology (sound systems, projectors etc.) across centres

Ensuring cleanliness of rooms in between bookings at unstaffed centres is a challenge

Work with community centres to install improved technology, as needed, to ensure better consistency of provision

Ensure more explicit expectations are set with users at time of booking regarding cleaning requirements. Support bond requirements to continue.

Resourcing allocation – booking fee revenue not being fully optimised

Some community centres are sitting on high levels of reserves

There is scope for the amount of financial support for community-led initiatives to be increased

Make percentage of income as investment for neighbourhood community-led initiatives more explicit in Management Agreements

Consider how a percentage of income return to Council could cover more facilities management costs

Sustainability - it is challenging to build sustainable management committees with a strong volunteer base

Difficulty experienced in retaining volunteers for some committees (particularly position holders)

Difficulty in increasing committee numbers to share responsibilities

Ageing volunteer base

Continue support for succession planning to build depth across committees

Work with committees to consider increasing portion of revenue towards improved volunteer retention (increase in honorarium and contractor fees)

Monitoring and evaluation – Council needs more frequent information to evaluate success

There are limited regular ways to seek feedback on community centres to ensure they continue to meet community and intended outcomes

Ensure regular satisfaction surveys of both users and management committees are accessible and promoted

Proximity – most community centres are serving a city-wide demographic rather than allowing for neighbourhood provision

The review showed some residents in neighbourhoods are not utilising their local community centre and/or not knowing what the centre is for

Connection to neighbourhood/surrounding environment to be promoted in marketing plan

Develop improved booking guidelines for management committees to improve equity of access and consistency.

Consider additional ways to encourage neighbourhood bookings.

Consider localised marketing onsite (community notice boards) and increase community centre connection to the adjacent reserve (where applicable)

Table 2. Summary of areas for improvement and actions to respond

4.15 The final finding note within this review is that Council’s decision to support the development of Community Hubs is not yet reflected in the Support and Funding Policy. Community Hub facilities, which will be multifunctional, staffed facilities, as sites of service provision, in addition to being bookable spaces, will likely require a different model of support and operation to the current community centres model. There is a need for policy direction for the development, occupancy, and charging for this new kind of community centre.

5 Conclusion

5.1 Council has a long-standing commitment to the provision of community centres, to provide bookable community facilities that are affordable, easy to access and meet the needs of the community.

5.2 This Community Centres’ Delivery Model Review provides an assessment of the current issues and operation of our community centres.

5.3 While there are some aspects of operations identified where there is room for improvement, to enhance user experiences and consistency of service, overall, the feedback through the review has shown the current community centres’ model is largely working well, providing valued facilities for the many in the community to enjoy.

5.4 Moving forward, ensuring that the centres remain well-maintained and responsive to the growing demand for their use will be key to maintaining their positive reputation and continued success.

6. Next Steps

6.1 Identified actions for improvement will be progressed as part of existing operational support by Council staff for community centres.

6.2 Staff will continue to monitor the operation of community centres (including periodic satisfaction surveys) and may conduct further reviews in the future. An appropriate time for any future review will be after the new community hubs are operational.

7. 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 objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 7. Mahere tautāwhi hapori 7. Community Support Plan The objective is: Provide and support community centres, Youth Space, and Hancock Community House
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being.	Community Centres contribute to the achievement of community wellbeing across all four areas, due to the range of activities, services and initiatives they support.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Community Committee

MEETING DATE: 21 May 2025

TITLE: Council Infrastructure accessibility initiatives

Presented By: Glen O'Connor, Manager Transport and Development and Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager Parks and Reserves

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Community Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Council accessibility initiatives and the actions needed to commit to the Ministry of Social Development Accessibility Charter’ presented to the Community Committee on 21 May 2024

2. That the Committee note that officers are currently working with the Disability Reference Group to confirm the scope for the assessment of transport assets.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Disability Reference Group made a submission to the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan requesting an accessibility assessment be undertaken of all Council-owned buildings, excluding housing.

1.2 Following a further submission from the Disability Reference Group to the 2022/23 Annual Plan, the scope of the accessibility assessment was expanded to include all Council-owned infrastructure.

1.3 The assessment of buildings was completed first. In March 2024, the Community Committee received an update of the work completed, the findings, and the process for addressing the identified issues and improvements.

1.4 This report summarises the building issues addressed since the last report and outlines the process for confirming the scope for the accessibility assessment of transport assets, which is programmed to commence this year.

1.5 The memo also provides an update on the ongoing programme of work to improve accessibility on parks and reserves and the approach proposed for an accessibility audit of parks in 2026.

1.6 This memo also provides an update on the approach for the accessibility audit on Council’s Transport assets.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Operational Programme 2041 (Property – Accessibility of Council Facilities Assessment) was included in Year 2 of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. This programme was created to provide an external assessment of all Council facilities to determine whether the needs of people with disability are appropriately addressed, and to identify any gaps.

2.2 The accessibility assessment considered seven elements – external approach, entrances, horizontal circulation, vertical circulation, sanitary conveniences, facilities and signage, wayfinding and lighting highlights.

2.3 Assessment reports were provided for each facility comprising of the following:

· Areas of concern requiring immediate attention – compliance and safety concerns.

· Recommendations for consideration in maintenance and short-term planning.

· Recommendations for longer-term planned renewals; and

· Highlighting areas, the reviewers regard as best practice in respect to accessibility.

2.4 Overall, the assessment resulted in a lengthy list of suggested improvements. Some improvements are quick fixes which could be addressed through ‘business as usual’ maintenance and renewals, and some are considerably more complex.

3. Buildings – update on improvement programme

3.1 The last report to Committee listed the following projects as Priority A – to be addressed over the next 1 to 2 years:

Address the non-compliant elements that do not meet the minimum local legislation. This will be undertaken using existing operational budgets and includes common issues throughout the portfolio such as:

· Installing kickplates onto the doors.

· Paintwork - Colour contrast wall and surfaces, car park paint, stair nose & handrail paint.

· Replacing door locks/handles.

· Installation of accessible features; coat hooks, showers, shelves, etc.

· Replace/relocate accessible bathroom/shower fixtures and fittings, height adjustment.

3.2 A summary of the accessibility improvement as of 01 April 2025 is as follows;

Survey findings	Total Action item	Priority -A	Priority B	Priority C
Survey findings	1847	1151	310	372
Completed	202	128	44	30
Progress	160	141	13	6
Not achievable	8	6	2	0
Deferred	21	12	5	4

Note: Some of the completed items relate to the tenants’ operation and are not building work. Commercial tenants were provided with the full list of recommendations for the premises they lease and invited to implement any of the recommendations that related to the tenant, as opposed to the landlord’s responsibility.

3.3 It was anticipated that the action items from Priority-A will be addressed using the existing operational budget, however, the Property’s operational budget is stretched, leaving little to spend on accessibility improvements. Going forward, while we continue to address these findings using the existing operational budget, should we need to expedite the implementation process, it is recommended to allocate specific budget lines for property accessibility improvements.

3.4 Some of the action items were included in the scope of the planned projects, in most cases, it is not practical to separately cost for these items. On other occasions, some of these action items are addressed by in-house resources which are not costed for separately either.

3.5 Priority-B projects have a 3-5-year timeframe. These are works that include adaption and improvement often associated with minor structural alteration. These elements will be added to the scope of the existing renewals programme and include:

· Improving accessible routes or parking, installing tactile cues on pedestrian routes.

· Widen the width of entrance/exit doors and improve ledges and ramp installation.

· Installing and improving handrails, treating the steeped slope ramps, improving gradients, etc.

· Flooring- replace the visually noisy patterned flooring, adding accessible counter/reception desks.

· Kitchen spaces: improve benches and facilities to meet adequate knee recess clearance or height for wheelchair users and those with height restrictions.

3.6 The original programme provided for the cost of undertaking the audit, but it was clear that if the findings required action, then the Council would need to approve an increase in budget. This has not happened yet. To achieve a quick and tangible outcome, we recommend that the Council could perhaps address this omission.

3.7 The current focus is on the implementation of Priority A, in the meantime, as and when practical action items from Priority B and C are also addressed, i.e. incorporating them into the scope of any planned upgrade work.

3.8 The Priority A action items will be addressed under the following programmes:

1. Programme 1 - Fixtures and Fittings (181 Action Items): Fixtures and fittings either do not exist in some of the accessible facilities or are not positioned at an accessible height and distance, e.g., grabrails, coat hangers, soap dispensers, hand dryers, flush buttons, etc.

2. Programme 2 - Toilet Backrest and Flushes (23 Action items): Some of the toilets lack backrests and toilets’ flush buttons are difficult to use, need to be replaced by a motion sensor, or the one is easy to use. This programme has not started yet.

3. Programme 3 - Colour Contrast Paint Work (267 action items); repainting either the wall in colour contrast or the fixtures and fittings on a wall, the entrance doors and the door frames, stairs nosing, handrails and ramps etc. The contrast repaint work has started in the public toilets using the Council’s painters’ team. Considering the magnitude of work, and the workload of the painters, some of these jobs will be outsourced.

Challenges in Programme 3:

1) Technical There is no one-fit solution for contrast paint. For instance, in public toilet spaces with a white tile wall, white appliances and fixtures, the appliances can be painted green. However, some of the fixtures, i.e. hand dryers, are owned by the supplier, not PNCC. Either the supplier needs to replace these fixtures for colour contrast fixtures or PNCC needs to get rid of them and install new ones. Both cases involve significant costs for renewals. Consistent vandalism i.e. the soap dispensers is another issue, which stops us from painting the appliances in green.

2) A white toilet seat on a white tile wall is hard to achieve colour contrast, i.e. redo the tiling or replace the toilet seat (hard to find coloured toilet seats other than white).

3) The Palmy Colour Identity (Green & White) both blend due to high gloss and restrict access for people with major vision impairment. Reducing the gloss level will increase the maintenance cost of cleaning and graffiti. We are seeking technical guides from Blind and Low Vision NZ on colour contrast.

4) Resources: The PNCC’s internal painters’ team is overstretched and cannot commit full-time to this programme. There is no specific budget for this work either.

4. Programme 4 Installation of Kick Plates (61 action items): These metal kickplates are installed at the bottom of accessible public toilets to protect the doors from both moisture penetration and damage from wheelchairs. This programme is awaiting the contractor’s quote.

Challenge in Programme 4:

Each door is of a different size, make and material, hence a generic design does not fit all doors. Each door needs to be inspected, measured and then appropriate kickplates designed.

5. Programme 5 Door Locks, handles and ramps (141 Action items): steep ramps, ramps with no handrail or handrail on one side only, door locks and handles difficult to use. This programme has not started yet and has no budget.

6. Programme 6 Signage Improvement (160 action items): signage improvement is a wide area that would impact portfolio-wide in terms of design, braille, colour coding, etc, in order to have uniform and standard signage across the city. Comms is working with Blind and Low Vision NZ to seek technical guidance on signage requirements particularly braille.

Priority B Accessibility List (3-5 years);

These are the works that include adaption and improvement often associated with minor structural alteration. These elements will be addressed either alongside renovations to an existing building or as a separate grouped project such as;

· Improving accessible routes or parking, installing tactile cues on pedestrian routes

· Widen the width of entrance/exit doors and improve ledges and ramp installation.

· Installing and improving handrails, treating the steep slope ramps, improving gradients, etc.

· Flooring- replace the visually noisy patterned flooring, adding accessible counter/reception desks

· Kitchen spaces: improve benches and facilities to meet adequate knee recess clearance or height for wheelchair users and those with height restrictions,

7. Long-term improvement; These include non-compliant elements that require major structural and ground alteration and improvement. Some of these issues may already meet the minimum local legislation requirements but do not meet universally accepted best practices. These will need substantially more planning and are not currently budgeted for.

4. Transport – scope of assessment

4.1 Officers have attended meetings with the Disability Reference Group to discuss the potential scope, detail and timing of an audit of Council’s Transport assets.

4.2 At its meeting on 31March 2025, officers and the Disability Reference Group had presentations from various audit providers around what services they can provide.

4.3 The Disability Reference Group is going to consider the options and then hold further discussions with officers to confirm the priorities for this audit.

4.4 It is likely that the resulting audit will be undertaken over two financial years.

5. Parks and Reserves – current accessibility initiatives and future Assessment Process

5.1 Programme 1884: Local Reserve – Accessibility and Safety Improvements is the primary programme used to fund physical accessibility projects within parks and reserves. Of the $116K per annum, $44K is budgeted for accessibility, and $39K for safety and $33K for lighting improvements. Projects are identified through asset inspections and requests from the community. A project funded through the programme may address more than one category and/or the funding may be used to support another parks programme.

5.2 The two other programmes that include a parks accessibility component are:

· 1852 - Improvements to existing reserves to close identified level of service gaps - $228 per annum

· 1825 Local Reserves Renewals – funding varies year to year – between $798- $821K in years 1-3 of the LTP

5.3 Programme 1852 - As part of the asset management planning process, officers assess each reserve against the stated level of service for that reserve category to identify service gaps. The survey results, are in the Parks Asset Management Plan - parks-and-reserves-asset-management-plan-2024.pdf.

5.4 Projects prioritisation within Programme 1852 is based on closing the biggest service gaps first. Our aim is for every suburb in the city to have a large reserve with a higher level of service provision than the other reserves in the suburb, including enhanced accessibility. Suburb Reserves have been the focus of Programme 1852 since 2022. Suburb reserves upgraded through this programme in the past three years include Milverton, Awapuni, Takaro, Cloverlea, Kelvin Grove, Celaeno and Rangitāne.

5.5 Programme 1825 – Another part of our asset management planning is the identification and delivery of projects to address performance issues associated with existing assets, including replacement of assets that have reached the end of their life, are no longer compliant or which do not meet the needs of users. Under pinning the annual funding envelopes in the LTP is a list of projects within each asset category, as well as allowance to address asset loss due to vandalism, theft and weather events. In general, the programme covers the renewal of furniture, hard surfaces, structures and playgrounds.

5.6 When renewing an asset, we aim to replace with a modern equivalent asset – that is an asset that delivers the same level of service. Where there is the ability to enhance the user experience, or address identified service gaps, e.g. accessibility, the renewal funding is supplemented by one of the other two programmes.

5.7 Attachment 2 provides a gallery of photographs of some of the accessibility improvements that have occurred in reserves in the past two years. Common accessibility improvements include new hard surface paths, removal of barrier rails and the widening of gateways, more inclusive play equipment, installation of shade and shelter, improved seating, access to drinking water, improved signage and lighting.

5.8 Accessibility Audit – Our parks level of service audit is based on the presence or otherwise of a feature. For accessibility, this is somewhat problematic, as accessibility within a recreation setting can be categorised in many ways – for example - physical, visual, cognitive, dexterity, balance, language etc. Accessibility can also be divided into access to get into the park, to move around and through the park and access to features within the park.

5.9 Recreation Aotearoa and the Outdoors Accessibility Working Group collaborated with industry and accessibility experts to develop the Outdoors Accessibility Design Guidelines - Outdoors Accessibility Design Guidelines | Recreation Aotearoa. The working group included disabled people with expertise in access and extensive experience in outdoor recreation.

5.10 The guidelines provide detailed, practical advice for improving accessibility in outdoor recreation spaces such as beaches, lakes, and green open spaces, with a focus on trails.

5.11 The guidelines were released in February 2025. Officers are still assessing how to best use the guidelines for an accessibility audit of our parks.

5.12 A more extensive accessibility audit will enable us to better identify accessibility issues and how best to address them. Officers intend to undertake an audit in 2026, The results will inform the next asset management plan and the 2027 Draft LTP.

6. NEXT STEPS

6.1 The accessibility audit and subsequent works will continue as outlined in this memorandum.

7. 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 objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 1. Mahere hoahoa tāone 1. Urban Design Plan The objective is: Provide and promote connected, sustainable, accessible, safe, interesting, and playful public spaces
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Accessible facilities improve the connectiveness and social well-being of people in the city

Attachments

Accessibility Projects on Parks 2023-2025 ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Community Committee

MEETING DATE: 21 May 2025

TITLE: Accessibility Charter: actions and resources needed for Council to adopt

Presented By: Jessica Papple, Marketing Manager and Olivia Wix, Communications Manager

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMMITTEE

1. That the Committee receive the report titled ‘Accessibility Charter – actions and resources needed’, presented to the Community Committee on 21 May 2025.

2. That the Chief Executive prepare a programme for the 2027-2037 Long Term Plan for Elected Members to consider.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Disability Reference Group have asked elected members to consider signing the Ministry of Social Development’s accessibility charter. Elected members asked the actions and resources required to do that.

BACKGROUND

1.2 The Accessibility Charter, led by the Ministry of Social Development, is a commitment public sector organisations can make to provide information in formats accessible to disabled people. Responsibility for the charter is in the process of being moved to Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People.

1.3 The Charter outlines the requirements that organisation needs to commit to over a period of five years. Once an organisation commits to adopting the Charter, it would need to create an action plan that is reported back to the Ministry every six months outlining how it’s doing. That is reported to the Minister of Disability Issues.

1.4 The Charter has a ‘Commitment’ that needs to be signed by the Chief Executive, Communications Manager and Chief Information Officer, which outlines at a high level the commitment to providing a wide range of accessible information. Under that is a supporting document with the specifics of what is expected in accessible communications. That document outlines a range of priority areas to focus on improving initially. They include: information specifically for or significantly impacts disabled people, exercising democratic rights, making an informed decision, receiving or making payments, consultation documents, or where people have asked for specific formats.

1.5 The charter requires that all new communication/information is available in accessible formats. Existing information that is a priority area should also be made available in accessible formats.

1.6 49 government organisations have committed to the charter, however we note that some don’t meet the full spectrum of the charter yet as there is a five year implementation process. While councils aren’t required to commit to the charter, all have varying accessibility commitments, including ours, as part of the ‘Enabling Good Lives’ principles.

1.7 As part of scoping the actions and resources needed to meet the charter requirements, a significant amount of work has been undertaken to audit the wide range of channels we use.

1.8 We have also met with the Disability Reference Group twice and attended an information training and workshop with the Ministry of Social Development. We also spoke with Blind and Low Vision New Zealand, Deaf Aotearoa and Easy Read.

1.9 For this report, we have not looked into the accessibility of communication and information of our Council Controlled Organisations, community centres, or CLM who manage our pools.

2. Current state

2.1 Our investigations show that we are doing a very good job at meeting accessibility needs across our council communications and do far more than many other government departments and other councils to ensure we make our information as available and accessible to our community. These include:

· Plain language across most communications: We ensure that all major public communications, including formal reports like the Long-Term Plan (LTP), Annual Report, consultations, social media posts, posters, flyers, and advertisements, letters and all other major communications to our community meet plain language standards. This guarantees they are clear, easy to understand, and as accessible as possible.

· We’re doing well with most of our websites: Our corporate website, www.pncc.govt.nz, holds a 100% accessibility score, exceeding the highest NZ web standards. Our library website also meets the standards in the charter. Over the next 12 months our Venues & Events, and Caccia Birch websites will come up to the same high level. Our Wildbase Recovery needs some moderate development upgrades while Manawatū Heritage and Club Sandwich websites require more significant work.

· Our main social media channels meet most accessibility standards: Council’s main channels @PNCityCouncil on Facebook, Youtube, Tiktok and LinkedIN pages meet the majority of accessibility standards, but not all requirements in the charter. Other social media pages associated with Council need more major changes which can be met through staff training. These other channels also don’t meet the charter requirements that our corporate channels don’t meet. These are explained below under the actions and resources needed section.

· An inclusive brand and graphic design choices: From font choice to color contrast, spacing, and layout, we ensure when we are designing things for our community that we are producing work that is fully accessible. This ensures readability for everyone.

· Inclusive Video Content: All council videos feature subtitles, and we host them on YouTube to enable closed captions, making our content accessible to those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

· Accessible signage: As part of our regular renewal process, signage around the city is updated to meet most accessibility standards, ensuring clear, easy-to-read information for all.

· Accessible templates for staff: We provide staff with accessible document and presentation templates, ensuring consistency in readability and ease of access. In onboarding training, we stress the importance of our staff creating information that can be understood by all in our community.

· Face-to-Face engagement: We hold community drop-in sessions, public meetings, and one-on-one engagements to ensure direct communication with residents who prefer in-person interactions.

· Online engagement & feedback tools: We provide accessible online forms and engagement platforms for residents to share their thoughts without needing to visit in person, where if needed they can use screen readers and audio readers

· Multi-channel communication: We communicate via various formats, including email, phone, online, newspaper, radio, and printed letters/flyers etc, ensuring people can choose their preferred way to engage with us.

· Council documents available in print: Key documents are available in printed format at libraries and service centers for those who may not have digital access.

· Key staff support with community: Many of our teams in customer service, at libraries and who undertake engagement help people to understand information in a wide range of ways to ensure it is accessible.

· We’re open to feedback: Often our community will ask us to get communications in a certain way and we’re constantly taking this on board and changing how we do things. We’re also more than happy to help provide bespoke communications when requested

· Accessibility is factored into procurement: Our procurement policy has a principle which is ‘Advancing Social Equity’. Accessibility is a core part of this.

3. Actions and resources Needed

3.1 The charter is a big step up from what we currently do. If Council chooses to proceed with the charter there will be a major work programme needed, additional staff resourcing and a budget required.

· All websites except main council site need audio readers added (approx. $25,000 per year)

· Wildbase Recovery needs a small amount of developer support (expect costs between $10,000-20,000)

· Staff need to work with Archives NZ to determine accessibility requirements for archival content for Manawatū Heritage. There could be a significant investment needed to make it accessible.

· Club Sandwich website will need either significant development cost or build a new website

· Closed captioning required on all videos. Based on current video production approx. $6,000 per year

· Sign language added on all videos (past and in the future). Cost not known at this stage. Based on number of videos we produce we expect this could be approx. $10,000- $20,000 per year.

· Social media pages for council services will need improvements through staff training. Additional changes to all social media will need to be considered (eg: Sign language, transcripts etc). This is explained further below in risks.

· Audio Described Videos: (An audio-described video is a video that includes spoken descriptions of key visual elements, making it accessible for people who are blind or have low vision. For example, in a video without dialogue, an audio description might say "A young boy runs through a sunflower field, laughing, as the sun sets behind him."). We will need to do a major audit of all videos we expect to use over the next five years and in the future and work with the NZ provider to determine the cost. We expect there would be a significant upfront cost, and then an ongoing budget required for new content.

· Video Transcripts: We would need to purchase specialist software that does this in accessible formats. It will also require significant staff training and likely ongoing contractor costs to ensure it is meeting needs. Costs unknown at this point.

· Audio recordings: Provided on a CD or USB, they are an audio recording of the communication. Need to work with specialist translator to do these. Costs unknown at this point.

· Braille communications and signs: We expect this will have the most significant financial impact in adopting the charter. This is due to the needs of the using specialist braille printing machines, translators and the significant number of both communications and signs around the city (eg in buildings, parks, transport space). A major audit of communications and all signs would need to occur to determine the potential costs.

· Easy Read: This format is highly supported by disabled people. As above, we expect this would have a large financial resource needed for all communications. There is also a large lead in time needed which we expand on further in risks. Appendix 3 gives an example of what Easy Read is for a submission form. That document cost around $2,000 and took around six weeks to produce. This is done by specialist translators and could not be done by council staff.

· Large font communications: This would primarily just impact staff making communications available in other sizes, and additional paper use especially for larger documents. This would mean greater lead in times for work as we would have to produce alternative formats to the designed document.

· Other: There is a wide range of other smaller scale things we need to do to meet the Charter requirement. This includes things such as: adding word documents to web pages, how emails are sent externally, file name conventions, staff training etc. There is a chance s ome of these things could have added costs as we are using technology differently to our licenses- eg: Word, and some people also may not be able to open if they don’t have a Microsoft license.

4. RISKS AND CHALLENGES

4.1 The charter focuses on making information as accessible as possible for people with disabilities. However, there are some challenges and risks in adopting the charter.

4.2 Timeframes: Information that gets translated into another format requires at least six weeks lead time. This will be a significant challenge for things like consultations or urgent work as we typically begin consultations within two weeks of council adopting the consultation material. This would be especially challenging for Annual Reports, Long Term Plans, Annual Budgets etc.

4.3 Impact on wider engagement on social media channels: Social media is an important communications tool as it makes information accessible to most people in our community. Social media platforms use algorithms to determine what content people want to see, and what content goes into their feeds. Algorithms change regularly, and as a result we change the way we make content to keep up to date with algorithm changes to ensure we have the highest chance possible of reaching as many people as possible. Algorithms use both visual checks (what the screen is showing) and monitoring of wording and length of post.

4.4 A few of the requirements could have an impact:

· Sign language on videos: Algorithms at first scan visually and only want to see only one image on a screen at once (this would be impacted if we used sign language interpreters in each video). This could mean some of our content is not shared as widely as if there was only one image. There has also been some research that shows some people can view it as distracting and therefore not watch the video. This could also impact wider engagement. Sign language on Instagram and Tiktok especially would be a challenge due to the size of the video (portrait rather than landscape). These videos could sit on our website, but don’t technically meet the charter requirements.

· Visual descriptions: Algorithms favour a variety of different length posts – some short and some slightly longer. More recently it is favouring short sharp posts. Visually explaining every image could negatively impact our engagement as we wouldn’t be able to create short snappy content to capture attention, tease or seek user generated information quickly. The content needs to be in the post description rather than the comments as screen readers don’t always read them. We wouldn’t be able to have transcripts of video on our social media due to the impact on the length of the posts. This would need to be housed on our website or YouTube and that isn’t ideal from an accessibility perspective.

4.5 While these things would improve accessibility for some people with disabilities, if we produce content that the algorithms don’t support, or our community don’t like, our overall engagement on all council information would suffer. This means people may be less informed about our services, facilities, events and opportunities to have their say. We note that the organisations that have adopted the charter, most aren’t following the requirements for social media, and we expect the reasons above are why.

4.6 Conflicting legislation: When we create communications, we need to consider a range of different legislative requirements. For signs in particular there is conflicting legislation when it comes to considering some of these changes that we’d need to consider and weigh up. For example: What the Building Act says about toilet signage is different to what the Human Rights Act says and is different to the ISO International Standards. The addition of large font and braille will further complicate that.

4.7 The main legislation we use are:

· NZ Building Code

· NZTA Guidelines for Roading

· Human Rights Act

· Council Bilingual Design Guidelines

· Ministry of Māori Development – Bilingual Signage Guidelines

· Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

· NZ Standards (NZS) / AS/NZS Standards

· Resource Management Act

· District Plan

· Building Accessibility Requirements

· Privacy Act 2020

· Signs and Public Places Bylaw

· NZ Fire Service Fire Safety and Evacuation Regulations

· ISO International Standards

4.8 Hierarchy of translation: Currently our guidelines, and most formal guidelines, have Te Reo before English and at the same font size and weight as each other. However, with the introduction of Braille this would need to change as we’d need to have all three languages. This will result in very large signs needed around the city. Blind and Low Vision NZ have also stated that all Te Reo would need to be translated into Braille.

4.9 Cost: Signing up to the charter would see a significant financial investment by council, as well as additional staff resourcing. While full costs haven’t been determined at this point, we are aware of some potential costs to meet some measures. Officers therefore believe that costs to meet the charter requirements would likely need a large upfront operation budget and then an ongoing operational budget of at least $50,000 per year, as well as increases to existing capital programmes costs for specialist printers and signs. An additional staff resource is also likely.

5. FEEDBACK FROM DISABILITY REFERENCE GROUP

5.1 We met with the Disability Reference Group twice. The first time was to give our initial overview of how we are tracking, and again late last month before presenting this report. They have provided the following feedback for your consideration.

“The disability reference group welcomed the council’s progress on the disability charter and praised the work done so far. The group saw the charter as a crucial step toward more inclusive communication and services. The group believes the charter is not just for disabled people, but also for older adults, people with English as a second language, and those using digital platforms. The group stressed that adopting the charter would mark a major shift and that accessibility should be built into all areas of council work, including websites, signage, and public consultations. Easy read formats were identified as a key early focus, along with consistent use of accessibility features and universal design. While acknowledging cost and resource challenges, the group encouraged the council to commit to the charter and lead by example.”

6. NEXT STEPS

6.1 This early work has already been significant, and has shown that, in many areas, we are performing well and delivering accessible communications across a range of platforms. Getting to this point has required a substantial investment of time from staff, and it provides a prudent milestone to seek guidance from elected members before proceeding further.

6.2 The next phase of work is scoping what would be required to fully meet the Charter’s commitments and that would be far more resource-intensive, reviewing thousands of documents we create for our community. It would involve identifying which materials need to be made available in alternative formats, estimating costs and timeframes, and engaging with external translators, developers, and the Disability Reference Group to begin prioritising actions. This work would enable officers to bring back a draft programme and budget for consideration as part of the Long Term Plan. At that point, elected members would also have an indication of the five-year work schedule that Council would be required to commit to and provide to the Government as part of choosing to proceed with the charter.

6.3 If elected members choose not to progress further work towards a formal commitment at this time, there are still a number of low-cost accessibility improvements that officers can continue to implement across Council’s communication channels. These include:

· Increased internal training on accessibility for staff

· When upgrading signs consider implementing of braille on priority areas identified through the Disability Reference Group

· When technology is being upgraded, accessibility continues to be one of the key requirements

· Continue plans to update the organisational style guide to ensure all communications are in plain English.

· We promote the accessibility services we do provide, and where possible provide communication in alternative formats.

· Improve some other elements where possible- eg using alt-text more in social media channels across the organisation (helps screen readers), add word documents to webpages where possible etc

· Continue to work with the Disability Reference Group to identify priority areas where accessibility could be improved.

7. 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 objectives?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 14. Mahere mana urungi, kirirarautanga hihiri 14. Governance and Active Citizenship Plan The objective is: Communities have the information they need to take part in Council processes. All governance processes and systems (including meetings, workshops, reference groups, hearings, engagement and consultation processes) encourage participation.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Preparing this report, and considering a draft programme shows our disabled community that we’re serious about supporting the Enabling Good Lives principles. The recommendation gives elected members a clear picture of what work is needed, how much it might cost, and how long it could take—so they can decide whether to adopt the Accessibility Charter as part of the next Long Term Plan.

Attachments

1.	Accessibility Charter ⇩
2.	Accessibility guide for implementation ⇩
3.	Easy read example - Auckland Council ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Community Committee

MEETING DATE: 21 May 2025

TITLE: Update on The Ada Street Project

Presented By: Danu Sefton, Community Development Advisor and Stephanie Velvin, Manager Community Development

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

RECOMMENDATION TO Community Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Update on The Ada Street Project’ presented to the Community Committee on 21 May 2025.

1. ISSUE

1.1 This is an update on the progress of The Ada Street Project.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 For many years, Ada Street in Palmerston North has been notorious for its high levels of deliberately lit fires, crime, and police callouts. In 2023 alone, Fire and Emergency New Zealand responded to 42 fires, 95% of which were deliberate, making it the most fire-prone street in New Zealand. In recent years, the situation escalated with the introduction of highly dangerous accelerants such as lithium batteries and car tyres, putting first responders at extreme risk. Police callouts exceeded the city average by 50%.

2.2 To address this, in early 2024 the Ada Street Project was launched, a collaborative effort between Council, the Safety Advisory Board members including Fire and Emergency New Zealand, New Zealand Police, Corrections New Zealand and Horizons Regional Council.

2.3 The initiative adopted an action-based, community-led development approach, starting with a community engagement event - a street BBQ held in April 2024 - where residents voiced their concerns. Alongside this, a community survey, door-to-door outreach and resident and landlord meetings helped shape an action plan.

2.4 The community identified their priorities, which informed the aims of the project:

· Dramatically reduce fire incidents and associated dangers

· Cut down police callouts and protect first responders from violence

· Foster community safety and unity through engagement and trust-building

· Build lasting partnerships between government agencies and the community

2.5 Key interventions within the project so far have included tree trimming, installing traffic management cameras, enhanced police patrols, and targeted community engagement.

2.6 In the first ten months, with no more than $1000 of direct investment, deliberately lit fires decreased by 90%, police callouts reduced by 63%, and there has been an estimated reduction of cost to front line services of over $60,000.

2.7 Thanks to strong cross-agency coordination and clearly defined roles, the initiative has progressed smoothly. The collaborative model has proven effective in addressing immediate safety concerns and building a foundation for lasting community resilience. Residents report feeling safer, landlords are pleased with the safety improvements, and there is emerging interest in forming a community support group to sustain progress.

2.8 With many of the immediate safety risks addressed, Phase two of the Ada Street Project has now commenced, with a second community engagement BBQ held in mid-April 2025, including social service groups alongside the existing partner agencies. This phase will focus on strengthening neighbourhood relationships and maintaining the improvements in safety to date.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 Officers will continue to progress The Ada Street Project towards further community safety and wellbeing outcomes.

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 objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No

The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 1: He tāone auaha, he tāone tiputipu Goal 1: An innovative and growing city Whāinga 2: He tāone whakaihiihi, tapatapahi ana Goal 2: A creative and exciting city Whāinga 3: He hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru Goal 3: A connected and safe community Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 9. Mahere haumaru hapori, hauora hapori 9. Community Safety and Health Plan The objective is: Coordinate and support community safety and harm reduction initiatives
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Ada Street Project promotes community safety, which is central to the achievement of social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing outcomes.

Attachments

Nil

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Community Committee

MEETING DATE: 21 May 2025

TITLE: Committee Work Schedule - May 2025

RECOMMENDATION TO Community Committee

1. That the Community Committee receive its Work Schedule dated May 2025.

committee work schedule – MaY 2025

	Estimated Report Date	Subject	General Manager Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause number
1	~~21 May 2025~~	~~Youth Development initiatives Budget~~	~~Customer & Community~~	~~To be included in the Youth Wellbeing and Youth Development – Annual Progress Report~~	~~Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.8-24~~
2	~~21 May 2025~~	~~Annual Youth Development Forum~~	~~Customer & Community~~	~~To be included in the Youth Wellbeing and Youth Development – Annual Progress Report~~	~~Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.8-24~~
3	~~21 May 2025~~	~~Annual update on the Implementation of the accessibility programme~~	~~Infrastructure~~		20 Mar 2024 Clause 11.2-24
4	~~21 May 2025~~	~~Youth Wellbeing and Youth Development – Annual Progress Report~~	~~Customer & Community~~		Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.2F(1) -24
5	~~21 May 2025~~	~~Youth Champions Reference Group~~	~~Customer & Community~~	~~To be included in the Youth Wellbeing and Youth Development – Annual Progress Report~~	~~Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.8-24~~
6	~~21 May 2025~~	~~Review of the Community Centres Model options~~	~~Customer & Community~~
7	~~21 May 2025~~	~~Actions and resources required to sign up to the Accessibility Charter~~	~~Customer & Community~~		~~22 Nov 2023~~ ~~Clause 38-23~~
8	~~21 May 2025~~	~~New Public Toilet – End of Albert Street – Alternative Locations~~	~~Infrastructure~~		~~28 August 2024 Clause 15-24~~
9	13 Aug 2025	Disability Reference Group – Annual Presentation	Customer & Community		Invitation to present 4 Nov 2020 Clause 41-20
10	13 Aug 2025	Pasifika Reference Group – Annual Presentation	Customer & Community		Terms of Reference
11	13 Aug 2025	Seniors Reference Group – Annual Presentation	Customer & Community		Terms of Reference
12	13 Aug 2025	Work Programme 1: Delivery Model for Property – CC) Trust, to include Summerhays Street.	General Manager Corporate Services	Move to Community Committee Work Schedule	1 May 2024 Clause 66-24
13	13 Aug 2025	Annual report on Library Services	Customer & Community		24 May 2023 Clause 22-23
14	13 Aug 2025	Annual Report Community Funding Allocation 2024/2025	Customer & Community		Rec 1c of the Community Grants & Events Funding Review - May 2021
15	13 Aug 2025	Roslyn Community Hub Feasibility progress	Customer & Community / Infrastructure
16	18 March 2026	Progress report on social housing development at Summerhays St	Strategic Planning / Infrastructure	Social Housing and property review agreed in December 2024	Council 1 May 2024 Clause 66-24
17	18 March 2026	Options to deliver social housing within the current Revenue and Finance Policy limit	Strategic Planning / Infrastructure	Property revenue generation review agreed in December 2024	20 March 2024 Clause 10-24
18	18 March 2026	Welcoming Communities – Annual Report	General Manager Customer & Community		4 November 2020 Clause 43-20
19	18 March 2026	Annual Sector Lead Report: Housing Advice Centre	General Manager Customer & Community		Terms of Reference
20	18 March 2026	Annual Sector Lead Report: Manawatū Multicultural Centre	General Manager Customer & Community		Terms of Reference
21	18 March 2026	Annual Sector Lead Report: Te Pū Harakeke – Community Collective Manawatū	General Manager Customer & Community		Terms of Reference
22	18 March 2026	Annual Sector Lead Report: Te Tihī o Ruahine Whānau Ora Alliance	General Manager Customer & Community		Terms of Reference

Proactive Release of Confidential Decisions

Date of meeting

Report Title

Released

Withheld

23 October 2024

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy - progress update*

Report (redacted), Attachments 1 and 3 (in full), 2 (redacted)

N/A

* Decision and Division (released in November 2024)

[1] Tree removal for sight lines would be an additional cost and has not included in costings.

[2] Number of trees that would be required to be removed has not been estimated.

[3] This is a measure of the percentage of people aged 15-24 not in employment, education and training, which Council has included as one of the community wellbeing indicators in the Oranga Papaioea City Strategy 2024-2034.

Lorna Johnson (Chair)
Patrick Handcock (Deputy Chair)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Orphée Mickalad
Rachel Bowen	Karen Naylor
Lew Findlay (QSM)	William Wood
Billy Meehan	Kaydee Zabelin