Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 1 May 2024

Council MEETING

1 May 2024

Order of Business

1. Karakia Timatanga

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 matters.

6. Presentation - Changes to Featherston Street Page 7

7. Featherston Street Cycleway Project - Stakeholder Engagement Review Page 9

Memorandum, presented by Masooma Akhter, Business Assurance Manager.

8. Confirmation of Minutes Page 23

“That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 3 April 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

9. Notice of Motion - Māori Wards Page 35

Presented by Councillor Kaydee Zabelin.

10. Nature Calls Quality Assurance Framework Page 41

Memorandum, presented by Masooma Akhter, Business Assurance Manager & Mike Monaghan, Group Manager - Three Waters.

11. Adoption of Nature Calls Steering Group Terms of Reference Page 55

Report, presented by Mike Monaghan. Group Manager Three Waters.

12. 2023 Residents' Survey Action Plan Page 63

Memorandum, presented by Andrew Boyle, Head of Community Planning and Jessica Ballinger, Marketing Manager.

13. Progress report: Youth Well-being Forum and Plan Page 71

Memorandum, presented by Remy Waldteufel-Irvine, Youth Services Team Leader, and Anton Carter, Group Manager Community Services.

14. Age Friendly Progress Report Page 115

Memorandum, presented by Kerry Hocquard, Community Development Advisor and Amy Viles, Acting Community Development Manager.

15. Elected Members' Meeting Attendance Statistics - 1 July 2023 to 31 December 2023 Page 139

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White - Democracy & Governance Manager.

16. Summerhays Street Redevelopment - Partnership Models Page 143

Report, presented by Bryce Hosking, Group Manager - Property and Resource Recovery, and Anna Saunders, Capital Projects Officer.

17. Council Work Schedule Page 161

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

18. Presentation of the Part I Public Culture & Sport Committee Recommendations from its 27 March 2024 Meeting Page 165

19. Presentation of the Part I Public Economic Growth Committee Recommendations from its 24 April 2024 Meeting Page 167

20. Karakia Whakamutunga

21. 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
22.	Minutes of the ordinary meeting - Part II Confidential - 3 April 2024	For the reasons set out in the ordinary minutes of 3 April 2024, held in public present.
23.	Renewal of Contract Term - Road Maintenance, Renewal, and Capital Improvement Services Contract	NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings	s7(2)(i)
24.	Summerhays Street Redevelopment - Expressions of Interest Feedback	THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL: Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position and NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings	s7(2)(b)(ii) and s7(2)(i)
25.	Whakarongo Land Swap with Summerset Retirement Village	NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings	s7(2)(i)
26.	District Licensing Committee- Additional Commissioner	PRIVACY: This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive	s7(2)(a)
27.	Part IIB - Confirmation of Minutes - 3 April 2024	PRIVACY: This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive	s7(2)(a)

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 Council Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 03 April 2024, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Mayor Grant Smith (in the Chair) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Apologies:

Councillors Lorna Johnson and Debi Marshall-Lobb (early departure – Council business)

Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb left the meeting at 12.15pm after the consideration of clause 39.3-24. She entered the meeting again at 2.55pm during consideration of clause 42-24. She was not present for clauses 39.4-24 to 41-24 inclusive.

35-24

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the apologies from Councillor Lorna Johnson and Debi Marshall-Lobb (early departure – Council business)

Clause 35-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

36-24

Notification of Late Item

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council agree to receive the Late Item Appointment of Trustees to Te Manawa Museums Trust for the following reasons:

Reasons for lateness: The Appointment Panel were not able to meet on Tuesday 26 March.

Reasons for urgency: Te Manawa Board expectation is that appointments will be made at the 3 April meeting, as per the report of 7 February.

Clause 36-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Declaration of Interest

Councillor Vaughan Dennison declared an interest in item 14 Mihara, Japan visit 2023 (clause 44) as he would be presenting the report.

37-24

Confirmation of Minutes – 6 March 2024 and Correction of Minutes 13 December 2023

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 6 March 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

2. That Council confirm the correction of clause 214-23, of the minutes of the 13 December 2023 as a true and correct record.

Clause 37-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Reports

38-24

Draft 2024 Development Contributions Policy - Approval for Consultation

Memorandum, presented by Jono Ferguson-Pye, City Planning Manager and David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council agree the Draft 2024 Development Contributions Policy (Attachment 1) for public consultation concurrent with and linked to the Draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

2. That Council agree the Statement of Proposal for the review of the Draft 2024 Development Contributions Policy (Attachment 2) for public consultation concurrent with and linked to the Draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

Clause 38-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

39-24	Adopting the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan Consultation Material Memorandum, presented by David Murphy - Chief Planning Officer, Cameron McKay - Chief Financial Officer, Chris Dyhrberg - Chief Infrastructure Officer, Debbie Perera, Audit Director. The Chief Financial Officer and Audit Director explained that Audit NZ had audited Council’s assumptions in the draft Long-Term Plan (LTP) and would give Council a qualified audit opinion due mainly to the uncertainty over the costs of the Nature Calls programme. Whilst Audit have verified that the use of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) through the IFF is appropriate as evidenced by other councils, namely Wellington City Council for its new Sludge Minimisation Facility. It noted that Council is not yet well advanced in its own application to Crown Infrastructure Partners (Government) and therefore there is uncertainty on what the levy would be. This could either result in an Emphasis of Matter or a qualification due to the level of uncertainty. Audit was also concerned about the number of large capital projects in the Plan which Council is relying on external funding for (eg Te Manawa and Central Library). It is unclear what would happen if Council didn’t receive funding given Council’s constrained debt limits. The Audit Director also noted that Council has historically under-delivered its capital programme, and this LTP, Council has increased its capital programme significantly. Audit questioned whether the proposed capital programme was achievable. The Chief Financial Officer outlined that in part the driver for the increase in capital programme is a number of large programmes, such as Nature Calls, seismic strengthening, and new community facilities. The meeting was adjourned 11.01am The meeting resumed 11.20am An alternative recommendation 5 was moved to ensure greater visibility of the breakdown of operating expenses in the activity budgets.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 1. That Council include Programme 1681 – Urban Growth – Kikiwhenua – Transport in the 2024-34 Long-term Plan Supporting Material (as in paragraph 6.6 of this report). 2. That Council note that minor changes have been made to wording, supporting information, budgets and disclosures as a result of the Audit review processes and decision of Council following the 7 February 2024 Council meeting. 4. That Council adopt for consultation the Statement of Proposal (Attachment 9) for the review of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policies (as agreed by Council 14 February 2024).
	Clause 39.1-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb. RESOLVED 3. That Council adopt for consultation the Statement of Proposal (Attachment 8) for the review of the Revenue and Financing Policy (as agreed by Council 7 February 2024).
	Clause 39.2-24 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 5. That Council adopt for consultation the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan supporting Material (as listed in Table 1), subject to the inclusion of operational programmes which are able to be identified and grant funding into the Activity budgets (Attachment 3) and that total amounts are included.
	Clause 39.3-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb left the meeting at 12:15pm
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Orphée Mickalad. RESOLVED 6. That Council adopt for consultation the 2024-34 Long-term Plan Consultation Document (Attachment 7).
	Clause 39.4-24 above was carried 13 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor.

The meeting adjourned at 12.27pm

The meeting resumed at 1.32pm

40-24

Featherston Street Safety Improvements - Additional NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi Streets for People External Funding

Memorandum, presented by Bryce Hosking, Acting Group Manager - Transport and Development.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Rachel Bowen.

RESOLVED

1. That Council agree an additional $500,000 of capital expenditure in FY2023/24 in Programme 2233 City-wide Urban Cycle Infrastructure Improvements – Streets for People to deliver further enhancements to the Streets for People project on Featherston Street. This additional capital expenditure to be funded as follows:

a. 90% ($450,000) from NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (capital revenue).

b. 10% ($50,000) from Council, through a capital transfer from existing funds in Programme 1559 (City-wide – Urban Cycle Infrastructure Network Improvements).

Clause 40-24 above was carried 8 votes to 6, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Orphée Mickalad and Kaydee Zabelin.

Against:

Councillors Mark Arnott, Lew Findlay, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and William Wood.

41-24

Alternative Use of Speed Management Funds

Memorandum, presented by Bryce Hosking, Acting Group Manager - Transport and Development.

An additional motion was moved for officers to investigate options to use the money to build the maximum number of pedestrian crossings at schools before 30 June 2024.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Brent Barrett.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Alternative Use of Speed Management Funds’ presented on 3 April 2024.

2. That the Chief Executive investigate all other contractor options to deliver further crossings within the financial year 2023/24.

Clause 41-24 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

42-24

Fast-Track Approval Bill - Palmerston North City Council Submission

Memorandum, presented by James Miguel, Senior Transport Planner and David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer.

Officers explained that Rangitāne had asked for some additions to the submission. Officers sought Council approval for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to alter the submission before it is submitted.

Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb returned to the meeting at 2:55pm

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Brent Barrett.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve the Fast-Track Approval Bill submission (Attachment 1).

2. That Council authorise the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to make minor edits and additions to the submission to reflect the views of our partner Rangitāne o Manawatū.

Clause 42-24 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb did not vote.

43-24

External Funding & Commercial Revenue - Business Assurance Review

Memorandum, presented by Masooma Akhter, Business Assurance Manager and Fiona Dredge, Commercial Advisory Manager.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘External Funding & Commercial Revenue – Business Assurance Review’ and its attachments, presented on 03 April 2024.

Clause 43-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

44-24

Mihara, Japan visit 2023

Memorandum, presented by Councillor Vaughan Dennison.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Mihara, Japan visit 2023’ presented on 3 April 2024.

Clause 44-24 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Note: Councillor Vaughan Dennison declared an interest, withdrew from the discussion and sat in the gallery.

45-24

Council Work Schedule

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated 3 April 2024.

Clause 45-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

46-24	Risk & Assurance Committee Part I Public - 6 March 2024 Consideration was given to Risk & Assurance Committee’s recommendations below.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Grant Smith. RESOLVED 1. That Council approve the Risk & Assurance Committee’s recommendations from 6 March 2024. 4-24 Setting Council's Risk Management Appetite and Tolerance Levels 1. That Council agree the recommended risk appetite and risk tolerance levels as noted in section 3.1 and 3.2 of the memorandum titled ‘Setting Council’s Risk Management Appetite and Tolerance Levels,’ presented to the Risk and Assurance Committee on 6 March 2024.
	Clause 46-24 above was carried 13 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and William Wood. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Grant Smith. RESOLVED 2. That Council approve the Risk & Assurance Committee’s recommendations from 6 March 2024. 5-24 Setting Council's Strategic Risks 1. That Council adds ‘Loss of Public Trust in Council’ to the Strategic Risk Statement. 2. That Council agree the strategic risk statements (Attachment 1), including recommendation 1, in the memorandum titled ‘Setting Council’s Strategic Risks’ presented to the Risk & Assurance Committee on 6 March 2024.
	Clause 46-24 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Kaydee Zabelin. Abstained: Councillors Leonie Hapeta and William Wood.

47-24

Sustainability Committee Part I Public - 13 March 2024

Consideration was given to Sustainability Committee’s recommendations as appended to these minutes.

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve the Sustainability Committee’s recommendations from 13 March 2024.

7-24 Palmerston North City Council Carbon Neutral Feasibility Study Update

1. That as part of the process of finalising the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan, Council either reaffirm the existing corporate emissions reduction target or replace the existing corporate emissions reduction target with a different one.

2. That Council note that further officer advice on the corporate emissions reduction target will be provided alongside deliberations on the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan.

Clause 47-24 above was carried 12 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor and Kaydee Zabelin.

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Leonie Hapeta and William Wood.

48-24

Community Committee Part I Public - 20 March 2024

Consideration was given to Community Committee recommendations as appended to these minutes.

Moved Patrick Handcock, seconded Orphée Mickalad.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve the Community Committee’s recommendation from 20 March 2024.

4-24 Annual Sector Lead Report: Housing Advice Centre

2. That Council refer the increase Housing Advice Centre’s Sector Lead grant funding by $21,131 to the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 deliberations for the 2024/25 financial year and adjusted for inflation in future years.

Clause 48-24 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith).

Exclusion of Public

49-24

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Debi Marshall-Lobb.

RESOLVED

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

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
21.	Minutes of the ordinary meeting - Part II Confidential - 6 March 2024	For the reasons set out in the ordinary minutes of 6 March 2024, held in public present.
22.	Environmental Health Contract- Follow up	THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL: Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position	s7(2)(b)(ii)
23.	Contact Centre Progress Review - Quality Assurance Report	COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: This information needs to be kept confidential to allow Council to engage in commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage	s7(2)(h)
24.	Employee Life Cycle - Business Assurance Review	THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL: Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position and NEGOTIATIONS: This information needs to be kept confidential to ensure that Council can negotiate effectively, especially in business dealings	s7(2)(b)(ii) and s7(2)(i)
25.	Tender Award - Wyndham Street, Ashhurst Upgrade	THIRD PARTY COMMERCIAL: Disclosing the information could harm a company's commercial position	s7(2)(b)(ii)
26	Appointment of Trustees to Te Manawa Board	PRIVACY: This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive	s7(2)(a)
27.	Part IIB Review of Chief Executive Six Month Performance	PRIVACY: This information needs to be kept private to protect personal information that is confidential or sensitive. This includes people who are no longer alive	s7(2)(a)

Clause 49-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The public part of the meeting finished at 3.19pm

Confirmed 1 May 2024

Mayor

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 May 2024

TITLE: 2023 Residents' Survey Action Plan

Presented By: Andrew Boyle, Head of Community Planning and Jessica Ballinger, Marketing Manager

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

Donna Baker, Acting Chief Executive Unit Manager

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council note the actions being undertaken in response to the 2023 Residents’ Survey results.

1. ISSUE

1.1 This report looks at the trends from the 2023 Annual Residents’ Survey results and outlines what Council needs to do to improve its reputation and satisfaction with its services.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In September 2023 Council received the results of the 2023 Residents’ Survey. Council resolved to request the Chief Executive to bring back an Action Plan for the 2023 Residents’ Survey’s results.

2.2 Council noted that the rationale for the resolution was that the survey results showed a drop in satisfaction in various areas, including Council’s reputation, and Elected Members needed to understand what work needs to be done to address the issues.

3. discussion of survey results

3.1 The Residents’ Survey measures residents’ perceptions of Council’s reputation and its services.

3.2 Trend data from the survey shows that satisfaction with Council’s reputation and services was fairly steady or increased between 2019 and 2021, but then dropped considerably in 2022. The 2023 results were similar to 2022.

3.3 Other councils experienced similar drops in 2022. This suggests that national factors such as COVID-19, tough economic times, and cost of living increases all impacted on how people felt and how they rated councils, including PNCC. This led to lower satisfaction scores for our reputation and service.

3.4 The survey also identifies the priorities for Council to improve satisfaction with its reputation and services. In the 2023 Survey Report KeyResearch said that:

“The key priorities for [Palmerston North City] Council include Value for Money, and perception of Council Reputation measures that include Leadership, Trust and Financial Management. Another priority to focus on is Roading.

“Verbatim comments left by the respondents indicate general disagreement with how rates are spent, as well as not enough effort from Council to consult the public before making financial decisions.

“Over the past years, road maintenance has received the highest number of comments from respondents. The issues mentioned include the need for improved maintenance and ensuring that roads are safe to use.”

3.5 These priorities are shown in the Opportunities and Priorities matrix from KeyResearch. The areas Council should focus on improving are in the Priorities quadrant. These are the areas that have the highest impact on how residents perceive Council overall and the lowest performance. The 2023 priorities are similar to previous years’ results.

A diagram of a company's performance

Description automatically generated

3.6 Other areas are in the Maintain and Promote quadrants. “Maintain” means the area has a high impact on how residents perceive Council and residents consider it is performing well – hence Council should continue this level of performance. “Promote” means Council is performing well but this has little impact on how Council is perceived, so Council should let people know what it does in these areas to get some reputational credit from its good performance.

3.7 Four reputational areas and one service area are in the Priorities Quadrant: Value for Money, Trust, Leadership, Financial Management and Roading. Value for Money, Trust, Leadership and Financial Management all overlap and actions to address one will impact on the others. Hence they are considered together in this report.

3.8 The following graph also shows that reputational measures are a priority to address.

3.9 Satisfaction with Council’s Value for Money (the red line), Overall Reputation (green) and Overall Satisfaction (blue) are all around 15-20 percentage points below Satisfaction with Council’s Facilities, Infrastructure and Services (yellow). In other words, residents are generally satisfied with our services, but this does not fully flow through into Council’s reputation and overall satisfaction.

A graph of different colored lines

Description automatically generated

3.10 These two charts mean that Council is unlikely to markedly improve its overall reputation by focussing solely on improving its services. Instead, our main focus should be on raising residents’ awareness that it is the Council that provides many of the services that they trust and rely on every day.

4. priority actions to address the residents’ survey results

4.1 Many of Council’s actions to address the Survey’s results fall into three broad areas:

· Raising residents’ awareness of Council’s services and role in the city

· Leading the city and providing reliable, value for money services through the Long-Term Plan

· Improving those services where satisfaction is low.

Raising residents’ awareness of Council’s services and role in the City

4.2 This occurs through a wide mix of formal and informal actions.

4.3 Since receiving the results from the last Residents’ Survey, a new initiative - the “What does Palmerston North City Council do?” campaign – has been launched. This gives residents “a peek behind the curtain of how things work at Palmerston North City Council. It's all about community, democracy, and making Palmy an even better place to call home.”

4.4 The campaign is supported by a range of promotional material including video and printed collateral. This material will continue to be promoted through Council channels.

4.5 The Residents’ Survey results show younger demographics are less satisfied in Council services than older groups, so we have “What Council Does” information specifically targeted at youth. We have been working with high school students, teaching them about the different ways Council affects their lives.

4.6 For more information on the campaign see: www.pncc.govt.nz/whatwedo

4.7 The other major initiative directly involves Elected Members talking about Council’s role and services, including:

· Elected Members have active roles in drop-in activities with diverse audiences for different activities.

· Elected Members tell people about their roles on Council. This includes talking at schools and Chairs of committees speaking about their portfolios.

· Elected Members’ photos and contact information are included on the website and in publications like the Annual Budget/Long-Term Plan consultation documents.

· Elected Members write newspaper columns and appear on radio talking about their roles and Council projects.

· Elected Members and officers use a wide range of communication methods to reach community and stakeholders. This includes significant numbers of formal letters, radio advertising, newspaper advertisements, social media etc. All these communications encourage two-way conversations.

Leading the City and providing reliable, value for money services through the Long-Term Plan

4.8 Trust, leadership, value for money, and financial management are central to the Council’s Long-term Plan. The LTP is all about what Council will do to lead the city and to provide services that residents can rely on and that provide value for money.

4.9 The LTP rests on the Oranga Papaioea City Strategy and Plans. These set out how Council will work towards social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, now and in the future

4.10 Socialisation of the LTP Consultation Document involves an open discussion with the community about the future of Palmerston North, the services that Council could provide, and the value for money people get for these services.

4.11 Council is now holding its LTP discussions in public meetings, rather than closed workshops, to engender more trust.

4.12 The Residents’ Survey is a key source of information for Elected Members and officers at various points of the LTP, including:

· The environmental scan

· The direction setting strategic retreat

· Oranga Papaioea City Strategy and Plans

· Asset Management Plans and Activity planning

· Prioritisation Activity Summary Sheets.

Improving Council services where satisfaction is low

4.13 The Residents’ Survey clearly shows that the priority area amongst Council services is transport, particularly road maintenance.

4.14 Council and Fulton Hogan have been looking at improvements to the roading maintenance process as part of the LTP. A report is going to Council in May proposing an increased budget, more clearly defined key deliverables for the contract, and a more transparent process.

4.15 Council’s Business Assurance Team has overseen an external review on the performance of the contract. Recommendations from this are considered in the Report going to Council in May.

4.16 Other improvements in the way Council invests in, and manages, its roading network are highlighted in the Palmerston North Integrated Transport Initiative (PNITI). These include:

· The Manawatū regional freight ring road to stop trucks using residential streets.

· Building a more balanced network that allows more people to walk, cycle or use public transport to get around.

· Building safer roads and intersections.

· Incorporating urban design into roading projects (such as Cuba St).

· Changing the way streets in the city centre look and operate to make the CBD more vibrant and attractive and to bring economic benefits.

· Footpaths are inspected every two years and are covered by the roading maintenance contract.

· Continuing to upgrade lights to LED and increasing programme to replace failed LED units.

4.17 One other service has dissatisfaction greater than 20% - community engagement. Here Council encourages people to have their say by offering a range of easy-to-use techniques. Through the “What does the Council do?” campaign it is also working to ensure residents understand the breadth and relevance of Council's services so they are more motivated to have their say.

4.18 Note that community engagement and trust have a close two-way relationship.

Ongoing Implementation of these actions

4.19 The Council identified “Loss of public trust in Council” as a strategic risk at the March 2024 Risk and Assurance Committee. Public trust in Council is largely a result of residents’ perceptions of Council’s leadership in the city and the reliability and value for money they feel they get from Council’s services. It is the central issue raised in the Residents’ Survey results.

4.20 Having ‘loss of public trust’ as a strategic risk means that:

· Officers will prepare a risk register for a loss of public trust in Council. This will identify the causes and consequences of a loss of trust. The risk register will include controls and mitigations (actions) to improve trust in Council. Note: the Risk and Assurance Committee adopted 11 strategic risks. Officers will progressively prepare risk registers for each of these. The risk register for loss of public trust is likely to be reported to Committee in September 2024.

· The Risk and Assurance Committee will receive regular monitoring reports on the risk rating of Council’s strategic risk registers.

4.21 In other words, identifying “loss of public trust in Council” as a strategic risk puts the actions identified in this report, along with other actions subsequently identified, into a formal risk register that Council will implement and monitor on an ongoing basis.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 KeyResearch is working on the 2024 Residents’ Survey. The survey is carried out in quarterly batches and the annual report will be sent to Council in July. Officers will prepare a report for Council to consider in September.

5.2 The “What does Palmerston North City Council do?” campaign will continue to roll out, reminding residents that it is Council that provides many of the value for money services that they rely on every day.

5.3 Council is currently consulting on the LTP. At its core the LTP is a community – Council conversation about Council’s leadership, trust, and value for money services. Council will adopt the LTP in June.

5.4 A report will go to Council in May with an improved road maintenance contract.

5.5 Officers will prepare a Strategic Risk Register. The strategic risks include “a loss of public trust in Council”. This will identify the causes and consequences of a loss of trust, along with mitigation actions. The risk register for loss of public trust is likely to be reported to the Risk and Assurance Committee in September. Council will receive regular monitoring reports on its strategic risks.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions? Some of the actions are dependent on the programmes currently in the proposed 2024 long-term plan.
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The recommendations contribute to the Council’s contribution to the four well-beings and all of Council’s goals and plans by giving Council feedback on its reputation and services.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 May 2024

TITLE: Progress report: Youth Well-being forum and plan

Presented By: Remy Waldteufel-Irvine, Youth Services Team Leader, and Anton Carter, Group Manager Community Services

APPROVED BY: Kerry-Lee Probert, Acting Chief Customer Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Progress report: Youth Well-being forum and plan’ presented on 1 May 2024.

1. ISSUE

1.1 At the Community Committee on 22 November 2023, the Committee resolved a Notice of Motion:

‘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.’

1.2 This memorandum summarises the findings and insights from the Youth Well-being Forum, which was held on Friday 5 April 2024, and presents analysis from a sector wide scan of youth focused programmes, initiatives and strategic or service gaps.

1.3 Due to the timing of the Long-Term Plan deliberations, and the Community Committee meeting schedule, this report is being presented to Council.

2. BACKGROUND

Palmerston North Youth Population

2.1 There is a total of 20,280 Young People aged 10 – 24 years in Palmerston North. This equates to 22.1% of the city’s total population and is higher than the national population average for the same age group, which is 19.2%.

2.2 In recent years, young people have experienced increased challenges in a range of areas including education, health, employment, safety and relationships. Covid-19 had an impact on young people, particularly affecting education and mental health outcomes.

2.3 Services nationally and locally are finding it hard to keep pace with escalating needs. Trends seen locally have been mirrored in many parts of New Zealand, and negative trends have been well publicised through national and local media.

2.4 Some recent local initiatives that have positively impacted the trajectory of these trends have been:

· Increasing the numbers of Ministry of Education (MoE) attendance officers to work alongside community to triage young people’s needs in response to disengagement with mainstream education.

· The introduction of a community policing initiative in the Central Business District, with specialist youth liaison staff.

· Youth-led programming such as Bestcare Whakapai Hauora's Rongomai kaupapa, and YCentral’s Rangatahi Ora Easter Event.

3. SUMMARY FROM THE YOUTH WELL-BEING FORUM

3.1 The forum was held on 5 April 2024 at the Conference and Function Centre. Ninety-five people attended, representing a wide range of services and networks. The forum gave officers the opportunity to understand how Council could better support the Youth Sector.

3.2 By bringing people together forum attendees were able to share insights and identify ways the sector works together, what is out there (including available resources and challenges), collaborative opportunities and aspirations.

3.3 High level aspirations of the forum attendees were consistent and best expressed through the following quotes:

“A connected, engaged, cohesive and resilient youth sector, that operates within a collective, mana enhancing manner that ensures youth services across Palmerston North are the best services they can be for the Rangatahi / Whānau they serve”

“Develop a shared understanding about how preventive and early intervention is key to establishing a pathway to youth and community well-being”

“Networking connections and an understanding of how we can best utilise our services to meet the needs of both young people and the community.

3.4 Table 1 provides an overview of the key insights from the forum. The full Youth Well-being Forum Report is provided in Attachment 1.

Table 1: Key Insights from the Youth Forum

Insight 1: Collaboration and networking

· Enthusiasm to work differently together

· Want to be delivering more collective impact and collaborative work.

· There was a focus on whanaungatanga to reconnect the sector, currently there are no regular events that support youth well-being services from across the sector to meet.

Insight 2: Workforce challenges

· There are workforce challenges that affect the aspiration to work closer together.

· Frontline staff skills shortage

· Lack of administration and co-ordination capacity

· Recent high turnover in the sector

· Strong desire to know who does what, and what’s out there (outside of already established mahi relationships).

Insight 3: Funding criteria and funding strategies

· Increase flexible funding criteria and equitable access

· Funding priorities affect responsive joined up work.

Insight 4: Various accessibility barriers were identified

· There is a lack of cross-sector localised data, or information that captures emerging trends.

· Development of a service directory to support the sector to know what and who’s out there.

· Access barriers exist for young people.

Insight 5: Youth Voice and Youth participation

· Championing Youth Voice and youth participation

· Empowering young people participation and youth voice throughout services at both a strategic and operational level, requires training on best practice and existing frameworks.

· Create a shared understanding across the sector on youth development frameworks and best practice to do this.

· Continue to develop and maintain safe spaces for young people that are diverse, culturally connected, and equitable to access.

4. Sector wide Scan

4.1 Undertaking a sector wide scan of youth focused programmes and/or initiatives in Palmerston North presented a number of challenges. These included:

· No specific central repository that provides easy access to this information from across the sector.

· The organisations, roles and associated programmes and initiatives that contribute to the well-being outcomes of young people are broad and varied.

· The age range variance for different programmes and initiatives i.e. programmes have a specific targeted age group and access criteria.

Youth Directory

4.2 Due to the time constraints, a full analysis of current programmes and initiatives could not be completed. To illustrate the breadth and number of services, officers have analysed accessible directory information from the 2016 Youth One Stop Shop (YOSS) Youth Services Directory, and the 2018 Index App Directory Data.

4.3 The contents page of the Youth Directory provides a good example of the range and types of services available. This is provided in Attachment 2.

4.4 No update of a sector-wide directory has been completed since 2018. This can be attributed to Covid-19, services capacity, and the end of the YOSS Strategic Priority Grants contract.

4.5 Analysis of current youth directories suggests there are several referral-based directories that are specific to well-being workstreams. These are current and of use to the organisations that require them but there is no high-level sector-wide resource for services. This was identified as a gap at the forum.

Programmes and Initiatives

4.6 A snapshot of existing programmes and initiatives are provided as examples of the types and range of youth well-being activity being delivered in Palmerston North. This snapshot is provided in Attachment 3.

Service Gaps

4.7 Initial service gaps identified through the Youth Well-being Forum are set out in Table 2.

Table 2: Identified Service Gaps

Programming	· Service/programme gaps for under 8–14-year-olds outside of school · Lack of programmes and services for 18–24-year-olds not in education, employment, or training · Need for an increase in programming for rainbow and takatāpui young people · Lack of programmes that support neurodiverse young people
Additional and alternate pathways	· Education and development pathways for young people in secondary school and below. Options for young people disengaged in mainstream education and training are limited, and particularly limited for young people under 14. · Access challenges and long waitlists were noted in connection to mental health services for young people.
Locations	· Safe Spaces for diff age groups <13 y/o, 13 - 19, >20 +, these can be utilised as triage spaces to address needs.
Workforce	· Need for more frontline youth workers, mentors and Tuakana + Teina connections
Funding	· Funding for services and programmes that are culturally connected and delivered in ways that strengthen young person’s sense of identity and belonging. Rainbow and disabled communities and Pasifika young people. · Increase access through funding for young people to sports, active rec and kapa haka

Youth strategies and reports

4.6 As part of the sector wide scan, it is important to note there are numerous central Government and Non-Governmental Organisation youth focused strategies and reports relating to youth well-being.

4.7 The most relevant report is the Children and Youth Wellbeing Report 2022/23, Annual Report on the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy for the year July 2022 – June 2023.

5. COUNCIL SUPPORT

5.1 Council currently contributes both directly and indirectly to well-being outcomes for young people through the following mechanisms:

a. Youth Services (through the City Library Youth Space facility with Youth Services Officers, youth development programmes such as the Palmy Youth Council, Tuia Te Here Tangata mentoring kaupapa and Global Ambassadors).

b. Community Funding (through Strategic Priority Grants, Community-Led Initiatives Fund, Creative Communities Scheme, Community Development Small Grants, Youth Council Scholarships and Grants). A breakdown of identified Council funding support is provided in Attachment 4.

c. Strategic relationships such as the Regional Inter-Agency Network (RIN) through the Group Manager Community Services and the Regional Leadership Group (RLG) through the Chief Executive.

d. Strategic partnerships such as Whānau Ora Strategic Innovation and Development Group (WOSIDG), and Ora Konnect.

e. The City Ambassadors Programme.

f. Outdoor amenities such as parks, sport fields, skateparks, hiking and biking trails and basketball courts.

g. Community facilities such as libraries, community centres, the Regent, Te Manawa, the Globe, CET Arena, and community pools.

5.2 While, the above represents identified support from Council, it is difficult to extract specific demographic investment across all Council services.

5.3 Officer’s recommend utilising current funding mechanisms as a practical way to respond to some of the needs identified at the forum.

5.4 Existing funding programmes could be accessed to provide support for the following:

a. Bi-annual Youth Forum (Community-Led initiatives fund)

b. Collaborative Youth Week events (Creative Communities Fund, Arts Event fund)

c. Palmerston North Sector wide Youth Services directory (Discretionary funds)

d. Programming for rainbow and takatāpui young people (Community-Led Initiatives Fund)

e. Encourage more youth organisations to apply for support through the Strategic Priority Grants Round 2025- 2028. (Note: The Youth Sector is large enough to warrant a potential youth focussed sector lead organisation.)

6. SUMMARY

6.1 Palmerston North is fortunate to have many established organisations, networks and services working towards the well-being of our city’s young people. Well-being services are diverse, reflecting the varying access and support needs of young people.

6.2 Should Council wish to further progress a Youth Well-being Action Plan, resourcing will be required to both strengthen the internal youth services provision and strengthen support to the youth sector.

6.3 The strategic focus of a Council-led Youth Well-being Action Plan could be centred around the three following initial themes:

1. Connection – Improve ways for the Youth Sector to be more connected to be able to share information, resources and knowledge.

2. Collation – Collation of existing youth data at a local level to provide better insights to youth well-being trends to help inform decision making.

3. Communication - Improve ways of communicating available youth services and programmes to a wider audience to improve accessibility to these services and initiatives.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 The Youth Well-being Forum was invaluable for gaining direct insights from the youth sector and there was strong feedback for six monthly youth forums to increase collective impacts and positive outcomes for young people.

7.2 Council provides a range of support and funding through existing mechanisms, directly or indirectly to organisations and initiatives that deliver well-being outcomes for young people.

7.3 Existing Council funding mechanisms could be utilised to address specific sector needs, such as outlined in section 5.4.

8. NEXT STEPS

8.1 Officers will actively communicate Council funding opportunities with the youth sector and provide guidance to access these opportunities.

8.2 Officers will investigate opportunities for a potential youth sector lead organisation.

8.3 Officers will continue to work with Interagency networks, strategic partner networks and Central Government agencies to strengthen support for the youth sector and outcomes for young people.

9. Compliance and administration

Does the Council 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?		Yes
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Connected Communities The action is: Support Communities to achieve their aspirations. Be a city where people feel safe and are safe.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	A Youth Well-being Action Plan contributes to the social and cultural well-being strategic outcomes.

Attachments

1. 1	Youth Well-being Forum Report ⇩
2. 2	Sector Wide Youth Services Directory 2016 ⇩
3. 3	Sector Wide Scan - Programmes and Initiatives ⇩
4. 4	Council Direct and Indirect Funding support ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 May 2024

TITLE: Age Friendly Progress Report

Presented By: Kerry Hocquard, Community Development Advisor and Amy Viles, Acting Community Development Manager

APPROVED BY: Kerry-Lee Probert, Acting Chief Customer Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled ‘Age Friendly Progress Report’, dated 1 May 2024.

1. ISSUE

1.1 This memorandum is a progress update on Council’s resolution on 31 May 2023 to establish an Age Friendly Programme and to develop an Age Friendly strategy/plan. Council resolved;

‘To establish an Age Friendly Programme to develop an Age Friendly strategy/plan with a budget of $50K in 2023/24 and refer ongoing costs of $30K annually to the Long-Term Plan deliberations.’

1.2 The memorandum presents a summary of the activities to date including the community engagement plan and community feedback following the engagement process.

1.3 A final options report (including a complete analysis of feedback and data) and a draft Palmerston North Age Friendly Action Plan and associated resourcing, will be presented to the Community Committee in October 2024.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 A report titled ‘Age Friendly Status and Funding’ was presented to the Community Committee on 24 May 2023, in response to the Committee’s resolution of 15 March 2023 that the Chief Executive investigate what is required to apply for Age Friendly status and funding. The Community Committee on 24 May 2023 resolved:

‘to refer a programme to develop an Age Friendly strategy/plan to the Annual Budget deliberations.’

2.2 Subsequently, on 31 May 2023, Council resolved:

‘to establish an Age Friendly Programme to develop an Age Friendly strategy/plan with a budget of $50K in 2023/24 and refer ongoing costs of $30K annually to the Long-Term Plan deliberations.’

2.3 Palmerston North City Council successfully joined the Age Friendly Aotearoa New Zealand (AFANZ) membership network in September 2023. According to Age Friendly Aotearoa, to date, a total of 33 councils have joined the Age-Friendly Aotearoa Network and are at various levels of progress in achieving the criteria outlined by the network.

2.4 In November 2023, Council was successful in receiving a grant of $5,000 from the Office for Seniors, to run a series of co-design community workshops to support the development of a Palmerston North Age Friendly Action Plan.

2.5 Achieving Age Friendly status requires Council to both join the membership network and to commit to a process of developing and implementing an Age Friendly Action Plan in collaboration with community partners.

2.6 The Age Friendly Framework, endorsed by Age Friendly Aotearoa New Zealand (part of the Office for Seniors through the Ministry of Social Development) includes the eight domains of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Age Friendly Framework, which are:

1. Open Spaces & Buildings

2. Housing

3. Transport

4. Civic Participation & Employment

5. Social Participation

6. Respect & Inclusion

7. Communication & Information

8. Health & Community Support Services

(World Health Organization. (‎2007)‎. Source: Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide).

2.7 The Office for Seniors suggest that the development of an Age Friendly Plan is guided by the following steps (as outlined in the preceding report to the Community Committee dated 24 May 2023 ’Age Friendly Status and Funding’):

Step 1. Get started. Connect with others, set up a steering group and check any funding that might be available. 

Step 2. Assess how age friendly your community is. Before you can develop an age friendly plan, you need to understand your community’s current situation.

Step 3. Develop a plan for communities to work towards becoming age friendly. The plan should focus on your own specific strengths, cultures, and needs.

Step 4. Implement the plan. With the assessment and planning done, you can now start to implement your age friendly actions.  

Step 5. Evaluate your age friendly programme. Evaluating the programme is key to understanding what is working well, what is not, and what to focus on next.

2.8 Council’s Age Friendly programme development is currently at Stage 2, where a community stocktake has been completed and a full and complete assessment of the data is still to be undertaken.

3. Community engagement Methodology

3.1 The purpose of the community engagement plan was to develop a collective understanding of the experiences of residents living in our City using an Age Friendly lens. Outlined details of the community engagement methodology are appended to this memorandum at Attachment 1.

3.2 Participants in the engagement had opportunities to advise on specific features, improvements, or proposed community actions, that will form the basis for the development of a draft Palmerston North Age Friendly Action Plan. A mixed methods approach was used to maximise participation by the community.

4. Early findings and emerging themes

4.1 Key findings have highlighted areas directly related to the work of Council, areas Council may have influence to advocate and areas that are outside of the work of Council. Workshop participants and survey respondents recommended actions that centered on the need for an age-friendly and disability-friendly lens (that is mana enhancing and culturally relevant) to be applied to all of Council’s services and city planning.

4.2 Key themes that emerged from all workshops included concerns with transport, housing, accessibility, social isolation, health, a need for connected, inclusive communities and clear, accurate, user-friendly and relevant information that was appropriate to an age-friendly audience.

4.3 Concerns were raised in the Age-Friendly Community workshops of difficulties accessing stairs and ramps into public buildings and that outdoor seating was not suitable for older people when at an inadequate height and clearance space, and missing backrests. Concerns about footpath safety were also expressed, where regular Council footpath maintenance was needed to address broken footpaths and tree roots impacting on the integrity of the footpath. Further feedback from the workshops is appended to this memorandum at Attachment 2.

4.4 Population projections signal an aging population which will have an impact on citywide planning for this sector. The table below indicates that within the next decade there will be more older people (aged 65+) than children in Palmerston North.

Age group projections as a proportion of the Palmerston North population (June 2018-base)

Year	Total population	0-14 years	Percentage of pop. aged 0-14 years	65+	Percentage of pop. aged 65+
2023	94,400	18,180	19.3%	14,603	15.5%
2028	98,302	17,983	18.3%	17,285	17.6%
2033	103,021	18,085	17.6%	19,369	18.8%
2038	107,240	18,424	17.2%	21,761	20.3%
2043	111,070	18,608	16.8%	23,295	21.0%
2048	114,407	18,740	16.4%	24,714	21.6%
2053	117,202	18,896	16.1%	26,355	22.5%

Source: Palmerston North City Council

4.5 The Age Friendly Programme aligns with work currently being undertaken by Council including the:

a. the Accessibility Audit and the future work of the Accessibility Charter

b. endorsement of the Enabling Good Lives principles

c. commitment to the Urban Design Protocol.

4.6 The Accessibility Audit of Council-owned buildings highlighted that some buildings or part of the building are inaccessible or limitedly accessible. This is an issue for both the aged community and for those living with disabilities.

4.7 In the development of a draft Palmerston North Age Friendly Action Plan, Officers will investigate opportunities to align the plan with these three areas.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 Council’s Age Friendly programme development is currently sitting at Stage 2, where a community stocktake has been completed, with early themes emerging.

5.2 Step 3 ‘Develop a plan’ will now be undertaken with an options report to be presented for consideration in October 2024. Feedback from the co-design community workshops and surveys will form the basis of a draft Palmerston North Age Friendly Action Plan.

5.3 A staff working group will be established to consider the community engagement feedback and to ascertain which areas can be considered within the scope of existing budgets or those that may require additional resourcing over time.

Age Friendly Funding Resourcing

5.4 If Council is to maintain membership to Age Friendly Aotearoa (AFANZ) and support the Age Friendly programme and subsequent Action Plan beyond October 2024, then funding the implementation of the plan will be required.

As a requirement of the AFANZ membership, Council is required to:

a. demonstrate that it is taking credible and tangible steps towards developing an age friendly strategy or action plan for their community. 

b. be leading the Age Friendly strategy or plan for their community. 

5.5 Requirement ‘a’ is underway and demonstrated. Requirement ‘b’ would require ongoing resourcing by Council. Given these membership requirements, it is likely that resourcing would be required to drive any implementation and evaluation of the Action Plan, depending on the content of the plan (steps 4 & 5 above).

5.6 The Office for Seniors has a fund available for the initial work of becoming an Age Friendly City.   The fund supports organisations with grants between $5,000 to $15,000. The funds may be used for operational costs related to the development of a strategy or plan, and/or the implementation of new projects or initiatives in support of a strategy or plan.

5.7 Council was successful in receiving $5,000 of funding in November 2023 from this fund. Council will be eligible again in 2026 to apply to this fund for implementation and initiative costs. The fund opens annually in August/September and officers will apply again when eligible in 2026.

6. Summary

6.1 The stepped development process outlined in the 24 May 2023 report ‘Age Friendly Status and Funding’ explained that the process of developing a Palmerston North Age Friendly Action Plan was likely to take up to 12 months (Steps 1-3 above). Council’s Age Friendly programme development is currently sitting at Stage 2 of 5 stages, where a community stocktake has been completed, with early themes identified. The programme is currently on track to meet that timeframe, noting that a full and complete assessment of the data and findings is still to be undertaken.

6.2 A draft Palmerston North Age Friendly Action Plan will be presented in October 2024 as an options report. Further external data will also be sought at this time, including Census data (which will start to become available from the end of May 2024) and will help inform decision making.

6.3 The ongoing process to become Age Friendly does not involve an end point achievement of a status or accreditation, rather it includes a commitment to the ongoing process and membership.

7. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		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?		Yes
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Connected Communities The action is: Build and maintain relationships with local communities of identity, interest and place to understand and support their strengths and aspirations
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	A continuing commitment to the Age Friendly process towards the achievement of the eight age friendly outcome areas aligns strongly with Council’s goals of being a connected and safe, and growing and innovative community, and will have positive impacts for the social and economic wellbeing of older people and the wider community.

Attachments

1.	Palmerston North Age Friendly Community Engagement Methodology March 2024 ⇩
2.	Key Community Feedback from Age Friendly Workshops March 2024 ⇩
3.	Age Friendly Survey 2024 ⇩

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 May 2024

TITLE: Summerhays Street Redevelopment - Partnership Models

PRESENTED BY: Bryce Hosking, Group Manager - Property and Resource Recovery, and Anna Saunders, Capital Projects Officer

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council facilitate the redevelopment of 17-19 Summerhays Street to achieve its desired housing outcomes for the site through

EITHER:

a. Engaging a construction partner through a standard design and build contract, whereby Council would solely deliver and fund the development.

OR

b. Engaging a partner to develop and finance the up-front cost of the project, with the homes then being purchased by Council or sold to a third party

OR

c. Engaging a partner to provide an end-to-end solution whereby the development, financing cost, and ongoing operation are undertaken by a partner, not Council.

Summary of options analysis for Summerhays Street Redevelopment Delivery Model

Problem or Opportunity	Council resolved to achieve medium-density social housing outcomes at 17-19 Summerhays Street, Palmerston North. Council has three broad partnership models which will deliver on its desired outcomes. Council needs to determine their preferred model before selecting a preferred partner. This report seeks direction from Council on the partnership model it wishes to pursue to facilitate the redevelopment of the site.
Community Views	· No specific community engagement has been undertaken about seeking partners for the redevelopment of 17-19 Summerhays Street, however, Council has previously signalled its intention to repurpose the site for housing. · In June and July 2021 Council consulted the community about Council’s proposal to repurpose the site for housing. Analysis of those submissions was provided to the Planning and Strategy Committee 20 October 2021. Most people who participated in the consultation favoured the site being repurposed for housing, with a variety of views expressed about the type of housing which could be developed. · Neighbouring residents may have a negative perception of social housing. · There is a general support for the creation of more housing. · There has historically been mixed views about Council selling land.
OPTION 1:	Engage a construction partner through a standard design and build contract, whereby Council would solely deliver and fund the development.
Benefits	· This is the same model that Council has delivered its Papaioea Place Redevelopment under. Council has a proven track record in delivery and achieving positive housing outcomes, which reduces some of the uncertainties and project risk. · Council will have complete control of the outcomes achieved at the site, with a high degree of influence over the design and methodology for what is delivered. · The outcomes of the development directly align with Council’s Goal 3 strategic direction to develop and support more social housing in the city. At the time of writing this report, Council’s social housing register waitlist sits at 286. A development of this size could produce between 35 to 70 homes, which will help get people into homes and off the waitlist. · As this would be a straightforward development partner engagement, no complex partnership agreements will be required. The engagement would simply be through a standard NZS3916:2023 design and build contract. This form of contract reduces the overall project delivery risk through sharing risk in the design between Council and the supplier, should any issues arise during delivery.
Risks	· The biggest trade-off for Option 1 is that Council will need to contribute the entire cost of the development. This may create a financial risk in respect to availability of funding and limiting Council’s ability to use funds for other priorities. Adding to this risk is the uncertainty regarding the Better off Funding. If this funding were no longer available for the project, this would further impact the budget availability for the project. This risk can be somewhat mitigated once the final project cost is known as Council can ensure there is sufficient funding prior to awarding the design and build contract or through potentially staging the project to deliver what the current budget allows for. · There is a reputational risk where Council may be criticised for trying to undertake the project itself when there are potentially financial contributors willing to partner with Council for the project. This can be somewhat mitigated through proactive public communication about why this option was chosen. · There is a reputational risk where Council may be criticised by the potential partners who responded to the EOI seeking other partnership models. This risk could be somewhat mitigated through robust communication and feedback back to the EOI respondents explaining why Council has chosen to proceed with Option 1. · There is a delivery risk associated with any uncertainties arising during construction, which either cause delays, increase the project cost, or both. This risk can be mitigated through an appropriately scaled project contingency, and through sharing the risk with the build partner through the design outcomes of the design and build contract. Price escalation could be managed through ordering of materials, value engineering throughout the design phase, and prudent project management disciplines. · There is a risk that some design innovation could be missed that could have been brought to the table from some of the end-to-end solution partners, which has been obtained through their experience in similar past projects. This risk cannot be mitigated.
Financial	· The cost to Council for rezoning the recreational half of the site is circa $35K and being funded through the better-off funding. · The total cost of development is estimated to be between $20 million – $30 million, depending on the density and typology of housing built. This is higher than the current budget provision for the project. · A contribution of $4.56M is currently available for the project through the Better-off Funding. · Council has a $14M budget in the LTP for delivering additional social housing in the city, with this budget tagged as our contribution to Summerhays. However, this will likely not make up the full balance of the development cost. · Council does have some deliverability options it could consider, such as delivering the development in stages. Noting that over the life of the project this will likely cost more overall as costs of construction increase, however, staging the development would allow Council to manage within its available budgets. · As this project would be increasing the council-owned social housing portfolio, an additional Tenancy Officer role would be required to maintain the current level of service across the portfolio. Additionally, the larger social housing portfolio would generate increased operational, maintenance, and renewal costs over the life of the assets. Officers have provided some high-level modelling on what Summerhays Street would cost across the next 10-year period in Appendix 1.
OPTION 2:	Engage a partner to develop and finance the up-front cost of the project, with the homes then being purchased by Council or sold to a third party.
Benefits	· The main benefit of Option 2 is that Council will only contribute a heavily reduced, or even no, up-front capital towards the project, whilst still achieving housing outcomes on the site. This provides the opportunity for Council to reprioritise available budgets to other projects. · Having an experienced partner in place will likely streamline and keep pace on delivery of the development as well as allow for innovations in design and construction that they may have used on similar projects. A partner will also help mitigate or financially absorb any development risks. · Council will still have some input into the design of the project to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved. · As with Option 1, this option contributes towards Council’s Goal 3 strategic direction through supporting more social housing in the city. · Option 2 provides a linkage to the outcomes of the Finance Strategy, which acknowledges that Council will actively seek partnering to help achieve its outcomes and manage its constrained future debt position; that said, given Council may end up purchasing the homes, this option would still impact debt headroom for any unplanned items in the future.
Risks	· The trade-off for Option 2 is that Council has less direct control over the development due to the partner’s involvement. This creates a risk that council’s aspirations for the site are not fully realised as they will need to be balanced with the partner’s objectives. Equally, if the partnership is not proceeding to Council’s satisfaction, this may compromise the outcomes. This can be somewhat mitigated through a robust and explicit partnership agreement and negotiations. · As with Option 1, there is a financial risk around the continued availability of the Better off Funding. Should this funding no longer be available and a financial contribution is required to the partnership arrangement, this would need to come from rate-funded budgets. This risk is mitigated as Council has $14M in Programme 1459, which it previously resolved to use to cover any financial contribution to the project. · There is a reputational risk of Council being criticised for selling the land to a partner, even if it is for developing the site for housing as previously signalled. This can be somewhat mitigated through exploring other options such as long-term land leases which can be negotiated through in the partnership arrangements. · Depending on the final arrangements of the partnership, there is a financial risk that Council will not make a net financial return on its investment. Some arrangement options could include Council purchasing some or all the houses once built from the partner, which will likely negate any return from the sale of the land. Another option could be that Council leases the houses back from the partner, which, whilst avoids capital investment, will increase the operating costs of council. This risk cannot be mitigated until negotiations are completed with a partner.
Financial	· The rezoning cost, possible overall development cost, and Council’s available funding are all covered in the Financial section of Option 1 above. These are unchanged for this option. · The Summerhays site is valued at $2.5M. · The development partner will be delivering and financing the up-front development costs rather than Council. · To make the development commercially viable, the partner will likely be seeking to on-sell or lease the house and land packages once built. This could be to Council or to another entity. If Council were to purchase or lease the finished product, it will be at a heightened cost as the land will be developed and the partner will be seeking a financial return in this opportunity. If purchase or lease is not guaranteed at the end of the project from Council, the partner would need to seek alternatives, which may detract from the attractiveness of the opportunity from their perspective. · If Council were to purchase the housing upon completion of the project, this will likely again trigger the need for an additional Tenancy Officer. Equally as with Option 1, the operational costs moving forward of increasing the housing portfolio would be borne by Council.
OPTION 3:	Engage a partner to provide an end-to-end solution, whereby the development, financing cost, and ongoing operation are undertaken by a partner, not Council.
Benefits	· All benefits of Option 2 are also applicable for Option 3. · The main additional benefits are that Council will not have to pay any operational, maintenance, or renewal costs associated with this development upon completion and ongoing. Equally, no additional staff members will be required for tenancy management as this will all be undertaken by the development partner, who will either undertake these duties themselves or will engage a Community Housing Provider (CHP). Essentially, Council can achieve the desired outcomes for the site without incurring any additional costs. · Council could receive an immediate cash injection through the sale of the land, which is valued at $2.5M to the partner, or alternatively, a long-term financial gain through a lease. Noting that a partner is most likely to want to purchase the land as it provides them unencumbered control of the site moving forward. · Council can have confidence that the site and tenants will be managed by a registered CHP and maintained by an experienced partner. · Council would be able to reprioritise its existing capital budgets as these would not be required to deliver the Summerhays project in this option. · If the Better off Funding is no longer available, this will be unlikely to have an impact on the project being delivered as Council was not funding the project. · Option 3 provides a strong linkage to the outcomes of the Finance Strategy, which acknowledges that Council will actively seek partnering to help achieve its outcomes and manage its constrained future debt position. The opportunity that an end-to-end soutlion in particular provides is achieving the outcome without any, or very limited, further rates requirement and provides Council debt headroom for any unplanned items in the future.
Risks	· As with Option 2, Council has less direct control over the development due to the partner’s involvement. This creates a risk that council’s aspirations for the site are not fully realised, as they will need to be balanced with the partner’s objectives. Equally, if the partnership is not proceeding to Council’s satisfaction, this may compromise the outcomes. This can be somewhat mitigated through a robust and explicit partnership agreement and negotiations. · There is a reputational risk of Council being criticised for selling the land to a partner, even if it is for developing the site for housing as previously signalled. This can be somewhat mitigated through exploring other options such as long-term land leases, which can be negotiated through in the partnership arrangements. · There is a reputational risk that Council is criticised for not utilising the Better off Funding when it was available. If the funding remains available, this risk can be mitigated through requesting to repurpose the available funding to another project. If the Better off Funding is not available, then this provides an explanation that can be communicated as to why it was not used. · A partner may require a mixed tenancy model at the site to achieve adequate financial return (through private sales or rentals) and meet the partner’s outcomes of the site. There is risk that a mixed tenancy model might not be attractive to the market, though this risk would be worn by the partner financially and Council reputationally. This can be mitigated through the partnership agreement to ensure it is viable for both Council and the partner. · A partner may have a different target tenant to what Council currently have or would seek to move into the development. This is a reputational risk to Council but can be mitigated through including any such requirements in the partnership agreement, noting that this may impact the attractiveness of the deal to the partner if Council is too restrictive.
Financial	· The rezoning cost, possible overall development cost, and Council’s available funding are all covered in the Financial section of Option 1 above, these are unchanged for this option. · The Summerhays site is valued at $2.5M. · The development partner will be delivering and financing the up-front development costs, rather than Council. · The partner who is a registered community housing provider can access the rental subsidy provided by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, making this solution more financially viable than Option 2. Council cannot currently access this subsidy as we are not a registered CHP and would otherwise have to wear the ongoing operational cost of the development in full.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Council owns the 8,276m² site at 17-19 Summerhays Street. This site was formerly occupied by the Terrace End Bowling Club.

1.2 Council decided to achieve medium-density social housing outcomes at the 17-19 Summerhays Street site and expressed that partnership opportunities should be considered, noting that the design would require negotiation with any potential partner.

1.3 To understand the partnership opportunities, Officers released an Expressions of Interest (EOI) on 6 December 2023, which closed on 31 January 2024. The development expectations put forward through the EOI were derived from the Council direction of the 4 October 2023 Council meeting.

1.4 To maximise the partnership opportunities and to ensure as much of the potential partner market was canvased as possible, partners were presented with three ways to partner with Council for the project. Respondents could offer solutions for one, two, or all three project components of:

1. Design and Build.

2. Finance and Own; and

3. Operate and Maintain.

Respondents were encouraged to work together with their preferred suppliers to maximise their offerings through consortiums, etc. As such, the options in this report reflect a combination of the above; Option 1 is a simple Design and Build; Option 2 is design, build, finance, and own; and Option 3 is an end-to-end solution combining all three components.

1.5 This report seeks direction from Council on the partnership model it wishes to pursue to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. Noting that the feedback from the EOI process is being presented in a separate confidential report titled ‘Summerhays Street Redevelopment – Expressions of Interest Feedback’to this same meeting.

2. Background and previous council decisions

Housing Outcomes for 17-19 Summerhays Street

2.1 On 4 October 2023, Council resolved the following outcomes to be achieved at the Summerhays Street site:

a. Social housing outcomes for 17-19 Summerhays Street (Option 1); AND

b. Medium density housing outcomes for 17-19 Summerhays Street; AND

c. Inclusion of sustainable building practices in the development of future options for 17-19 Summerhays Street; AND

d. Inclusion of best-practice urban design practices in the development of future options for 17-19 Summerhays Street; AND

e. Design options being developed for one-, two- and three-bedroom dwellings within 17-19 Summerhays Street; AND

f. The design options include at least one option with a mix of subsidised and non-subsidised social housing.

2.2 Council expressed a desire to explore partnerships for the delivery of the development. Subsequently, officers paused the design phase to first test the market for partnership opportunities, so to avoid any rework should a partner come on board.

Additional Social Housing Budget Update (Programme 1459)

2.3 On 18 December 2023 Council agreed (222-23) the 22 November 2023 Community Committee recommendation to use Programme 1459 (Additional Social Housing Units) to fund Council’s financial contribution to the Summerhays Street redevelopment project, if any.

2.4 The extent of how much of the budget in Programme 1459 would be required will not be known until the design is progressed and the partnership opportunities are explored/confirmed. It is unlikely that this programme budget will be sufficient to deliver the entire development.

3. Description of options

3.1 Before determining a preferred partnership model to best deliver on Council’s desired outcomes, it is important to understand the partnership mechanics of each model.

3.2 Each model has benefits and risks, and can viably deliver the project and ensure that the desired outcomes around delivering housing are delivered. The decision around options comes down to how directly involved in the project delivery Council wants to be.

3.3 The trade-off to having more control in the delivery is that Council will also need to contribute more or all capital upfront to deliver the project. This is explored in more detail in Section 4 of this report.

3.4 A further description of each of the options is given below:

Option 1: Engage a construction partner through a standard design and build contract, whereby Council would solely deliver and fund the development.

3.5 For this option, Council would engage a partner to enter a design and build contract to deliver the development. This is the same model of delivery as Papaioea Place.

3.6 Council would fund the project using Council capital budgets and the Better-Off Funding provision.

3.7 The property would be retained by Council, adding to our 442-unit social housing portfolio.

3.8 Essentially, Council would contribute the entire up-front capital cost of the project, along with operating and maintaining the complex moving forward. It is important to note that the development would be cost-negative in the long-term as with the balance of the council-owned social housing portfolio.

Option 2: Engage a partner to develop and finance the up-front cost of the project, with the homes then being purchased by Council or sold to a third party.

3.9 Council could sell or lease the land to a partner to deliver and fund the project.

3.10 Council’s contribution to this delivery model would be the land and potentially some or all the $4M better-off funding allocated for the project (if required).

3.11 In most scenarios, the partner would be looking to on-sell or lease the housing units back to Council to then operate and maintain, as it does with its current portfolio. The partner would make their financial return through the sale or lease of the house and land packages.

Option 3: Engage a partner to provide an end-to-end solution, whereby the development, financing cost, and ongoing operation are undertaken by a partner, not Council.

3.12 Council could sell or lease the land to a partner to deliver, fund and then maintain and operate the complex. Council’s financial contribution would be like above Option 2, if any.

3.13 In this option the development partner also includes a Community Housing Provider (CHP) in the agreement.

3.14 Homes provided by Registered Community Housing Providers (CHP) are typically subsidised by the Income Related Rent subsidy. The tenant portion of the rent will be 25% of the tenant’s income as determined by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

3.15 This differs from Council-owned social housing, as we are not eligible for the balance to be payable from MSD. This essentially means the other 75% of the ‘market rent’ is simply foregone. This is a restriction with the current social housing model Council operates and one of the reasons our social housing portfolio is cost negative for the ratepayer.

3.16 Should the end-to-end solution be preferred, Council should be aware that this will likely involve the partner making a return through use of a mixed tenancy model that includes some or all of, progressive home ownership, affordable market rentals, and utilising the rental subsidy opportunities. This would be a key consideration to ensure a financially viable solution is achieved.

3.17 For affordable rental homes CHPs typically set rents at or below 80% of market rental levels for the area and these are intended to be around a third of household incomes. Each provider will have its own rent policy and eligibility settings.

3.18 Noting that in some scenarios this would mean that 100% of the site may not become social housing as Council defines it. This could be a negotiation point with a preferred partner.

3.19 A Community Housing Provider also has the ability to apply to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) for funding to support the construction of public housing units. When considering proposals from CHPs, MHUD looks for public housing opportunities that meet specific criteria, with a major one being land ownership or access to land for immediate development. They also like to fund opportunities in locations where Kāinga Ora has limited presence, or the need exceeds the availability of social housing.

3.20 MHUD’s preference is for CHPs to retain ownership of completed housing units as this strengthens their ability to ensure long-term public housing availability. However, they do also consider build-to-rent situations on a case by case basis.

3.21 As with the Income Related Subsidy from MSD, the MHUD funding is not available to Council in its current social housing model as it is only for registered CHPs and Kāinga Ora.

4. Analysis of Partnership Model options

4.1 There are many different partnership models that could be entered, and every arrangement is different, however, Officers believe they can ultimately all be aligned to one of the three options presented in this report. Equally, there are several matters that will not be known until detailed discussions commence with a preferred partner, such as financial modelling.

4.2 Each partnership model can be summarised on a spectrum of how they relate to the level of involvement (control on outcomes), risk, and cost as shown below:

4.3 At one end of the spectrum, Council would fund and deliver the project themselves (Option 1). This presents the highest risk on balance, but Council has direct control on the outcome. Council should also consider the whole-of-life costs that this option entails, which is detailed in Appendix 1. It is also important to note that this option will not be cost positive over its life, as with the balance of Council’s social housing portfolio.

4.4 The complete opposite delivery approach is where Council could sell or lease the land to a partner for an end-to-end solution (Option 3). This is a lowest risk option, with the trade-off being that Council would also have limited direct control over the outcomes. Note, that the control on outcomes could be enhanced by including a land covenant or development terms on the sale or lease agreement of the land to the partner.

4.5 Option 2 sits in the middle of these.

4.6 The below table provides a comparison between the three options through six critical considerations:

1. Achievement of housing outcomes.

2. Debt and capital required.

3. Operational expenditure.

4. Ownership of the asset.

5. Control and risk appetite; and

6. Achievement of social outcomes.

	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Housing Outcomes	Council’s desired medium-density, social housing outcomes can be achieved as Council is directly delivering the project.	Council’s desired medium-density, social housing outcomes can be achieved through a partnership agreement.	Council’s desired medium-density, social housing outcomes can be achieved through a partnership agreement.
Debt and Capital	The development is estimated to cost circa $20 - $30 million. Council can use $4M from the better-off funding to contribute to this project, though this may be retracted/redirected by Central Government. Council has agreed that Programme 1459 can be used as a contribution to this development. There is likely to be a funding shortfall requiring additional funding unless delivered in stages.	Council can use $4M from the better-off funding to contribute to this project, should a capital contribution be required, though this may be retracted/redirected by Central Government. The partner will fund all or the remainder of the development. Council could come out of the project cost-negative if Council were required to purchase or lease units upon completion. This may be a requirement for the development partner.	Council can use $4M from the better-off funding to contribute to this project, should a capital contribution be required, though this may be retracted/redirected by Central Government. The partner will fund all or the remainder of the development.
Operational Expenditure	As this project would be increasing the Council-owned social housing portfolio, an additional Tenancy Officer role would be required to maintain the current level of service across the portfolio. Additionally, the larger social housing portfolio would generate increased operational, maintenance, and renewal costs over the life of the assets. Officers have provided some high-level modelling on what Summerhays Street would cost across the next 10-year period in Appendix 1.	If Council were to purchase the housing upon completion of the project, this will likely again trigger the need for an additional Tenancy Officer who are currently at capacity. Equally as with Option 1, the operational costs moving forward of increasing the housing portfolio will be borne by Council. Again, please refer to Appendix 1 for high-level financial modelling of Summerhays Street.	No operational expenditure required as a partner will operate and maintain the finished complex.
Ownership	Council would retain ownership of the land and the newly built assets.	Council may share ownership of the land and the newly built assets. A lease could be in place if ownership were not achieved.	A partner will own the finished complex.
Control/Risk	Council will have full control on design, timing, outcomes, and cost of the development.	Council will have some control on the development, where Council could provide input or requirements on the design, timing, outcomes, and costs. Requirements could be put in place via an agreement/contract.	Council will have some control on the development, where Council could provide input or requirements on the design, timing, outcomes, and costs. Requirements could be put in place via an agreement/contract.
Social Outcomes	Council will be able to determine and execute agreed social outcomes for the site.	Council may have to alter or compromise social outcomes for the partner to achieve a financially viable project.	Council may have to alter or compromise social outcomes for the partner to achieve a financially viable project.

5. Conclusion

5.1 All three partnership options are considered valid and provide several benefits and risks, and will deliver on Council’s aspirations and desired outcomes for the site.

6. Next actions

6.1 Once a partnership model is determined, a decision on how Council wishes to engage a preferred partner will be explored i.e. proceed with a single preferred partner, a shortlist of partners etc. This is discussed in the confidential report titled ‘Summerhays Street Redevelopment- Expressions of Interest Feedback’ to this 01 May 2024 meeting.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 No specific wider community engagement has been undertaken about seeking partners for the redevelopment of 17-19 Summerhays Street, however, Council has previously signalled its intention to repurpose the site for housing.

Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do, they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: An Innovative and Growing City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in City Growth The action is: Collaborate with the development community and Kāinga Ora on delivery of new housing developments and diverse forms of housing, such as duplexes, terrace housing, apartments, and other multi-unit options.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being	Developing the Summerhays Street site will contribute to housing outcomes (Goals 1 and 3).

Attachments

Financial Modelling for Summerhays Street Redevelopment ⇩

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 May 2024

TITLE: Council Work Schedule

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated 1 May 2024.

COUNCIL WORK SCHEDULE 1 May 2024

#	Estimated Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause
	~~1 May 2024~~	~~2023 Residents Survey - Action Plan~~	~~Chief Planning Officer~~		6 Sept 2023 Clause 144-23
	~~1 May 2024~~	~~Development of a Youth Wellbeing Plan - sector wide scan to identify strategic or service gaps~~	~~Chief Customer Officer~~		~~Community Committee~~ ~~22 November 2023~~ ~~Clause 41.2-23~~
	~~1 May 2024~~	~~Nature Calls Steering Group - Adoption of Terms of Reference~~	~~Chief Infrastructure Officer~~		~~1 November 2023~~ ~~Clause 180-23~~
1	15 May 2024	Hearings for the Long Term Plan 2024-34 AND · Rates Review · Development Contributions Policy · Revenue and Financing Policy · Rates Relief and Postponement Policies · Fees and Charges - Trade Waste and Planning · Waste Management and Minimisation Plan	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
2	29 May 2024	Deliberations of the Long Term Plan 2024-34	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
3	29 May 2024	Deliberations on the Rates Review	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
4	29 May 2024	Deliberations on the Fees and Charges - Trade Waste + Planning	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
5	29 May 2024	Deliberations on Revenue and Finance Policy + Rates Relief and Postponement Policies	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
6	29 May 2024	Deliberations on Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)	Chief Planning Officer		Sustainability Committee 13 March 2024
7	29 May 2024	Deliberations on Development Contributions Policy	Chief Planning Officer		Terms of Reference
8	5 June 2024	Appointment of Trustees on Council Controlled Organisations	CE Unit Manager		Terms of Reference
9	5 June 2024	Remits received from other Territorial Authorities	CE Unit Manager		Terms of Reference
10	26 June 2024	Adopt Long Term Plan 2024-34	Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
11	26 June 2024	Adopt Future Development (FDS) Strategy – Recs from Steering group.	Chief Executive		Council 28 June 2023 Clause 109-23
12	26 June 2024	Adopt Fees and Charges - Trade Waste + Planning	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
13	26 June 2024	Adopt Rating System. + Strike the rates.	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
14	26 June 2024	Adopt Revenue and Finance Policy and Rates Relief and Postponement Policies	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
15	26 June 2024	Adopt the Development Contribution Policy	Chief Planning Officer		Terms of Reference
16	26 June 2024	Adopt the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)	Chief Planning Officer		Sustainability Committee 13 March 2024
17	7 August 2024	Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan Steering Group - 6-monthly update	Chief Planning Officer		Terms of Reference of the CCMP Steering Group
18	4 Sept 2024	Annual Review of Delegations Manual	CE Unit Manager		6 September 2023 Clause 147-23
19	2 Oct 2024	Food HQ Innovation Limited - Director's company progress report	Chief Infrastructure Officer		6 September 2023 Clause 143-23
20	2 Oct 2024	Appointment of members to the District Licensing Committee List.	CE Unit Manager		1 November 2023 Clause 190-23
21	30 Oct 2024	Adopt Annual Report 2023-24	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
22	27 Nov 2024	Appointment of CEDA Directors	CE Unit Manger		6 March 2024 Clause 23 -24
23	27 Nov 2024	Annual Report 2023-2024 - Performing Arts Trust	CE Unit Manger		Terms of Reference
24	11 Dec 2024	Annual Budget 2025/26	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
25	11 Dec 2024	City Revaluation – impact on rates	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
26	TBC	Report back on Investment Options for PN Airport	Chief Financial Officer		6 December 2023 Clause 197-23
27	1 March 2025	Exemption of Manawatū Whanganui Disaster Relief Fund from being a CCO	CE Unit Manger		Terms of Reference
28	30 May 2025	Exemption of Palmerston North Performing Arts Trust	CE Unit Manager		Terms of Reference

Grant Smith (Mayor)
Debi Marshall-Lobb (Deputy Mayor)
Mark Arnott	Leonie Hapeta
Brent Barrett	Lorna Johnson
Rachel Bowen	Billy Meehan
Vaughan Dennison	Orphée Mickalad
Lew Findlay (QSM)	Karen Naylor
Roly Fitzgerald	William Wood
Patrick Handcock (ONZM)	Kaydee Zabelin

1.	Attachment 1 - Nature Calls Steering Group Terms of Reference - Final ⇩
2.	Attachment 2 - Nature Calls Steering Group draft Terms of Reference ⇩