Agenda of Grants Subcommittee

Part A Reports

Dunedin Biodiversity Fund - Applications to the April 2018 Funding Round

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The April 2018 round of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund opened on 1 April 2018 with applications closing on 30 April 2018.

2 A total of six applications were received. The total funding amount that has been requested by the applicants ($25,392) is less than the funding available for the funding round ($30,000).

3 All of the applications meet all or some of the fund criteria. Four applications involve work carried out in ASCVs or covenants. All applications are consistent with the purpose of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund.

4 The purpose of this report is to assist the Committee in considering the applications and allocation of funding by providing an assessment of the applications against the fund criteria and prioritisation criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Subcommittee:

a) Considers the recommendations for the allocation of the grants; and

b) Decides on the allocation of the grants across the applications received to the April 2018 round of the Biodiversity Fund.

BACKGROUND

5 The April 2018 round of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund opened on 1 April 2018 with applications closing on 30 April 2018. For this round of funding, $30,000 is available for allocation plus any savings from the previous funding round. Six applications were received, with four involving projects adjoining or within Areas of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV), QE II covenants or other protected land. Full copies of the applications are included in Attachment A.

Funding Criteria

6 The Dunedin Biodiversity Fund was established in August 2007 with the following purpose: “To maintain a network of viable habitats and ecosystems in Dunedin by encouraging and supporting those landowners who are committed to protecting, enhancing and managing indigenous biodiversity.”

7 Funding is to be allocated on a cost sharing arrangement of 50:50, with the Council funding up to half of the project cost and the applicant making a contribution to the costs. The maximum total grant that can be allocated under the fund is $5,000. Projects must be aimed at:

a) conserving or protecting indigenous biodiversity by fencing and permanently protecting areas through covenanting; and

b) management of indigenous biodiversity for restoration and enhancement of biodiversity values.

8 To be eligible for funding, applications should meet the following criteria:

· have a protective covenant registered on the title of the land (or be entered into as part of the funding application) and/or be identified as an ASCV on Schedule 25.4 of the Dunedin City District Plan (or be entered into as part of the funding application);

· meet the Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV) criteria within the Dunedin City District Plan;

· not be planted with exotic vegetation once protected unless provided for in an agreed management plan;

· exclude stock from the area to be protected unless provided for in an agreed management plan; and

· be accompanied by a management plan.

Prioritisation Criteria

9 The following criteria are provided to enable the Committee to prioritise applications:

a) Significance of the site. This will include consideration of the District Plan criteria and the National Priorities for Biodiversity Protection

b) The sustainability of the project, that it is long-term and enduring environmental outcomes

c) Contribution towards achieving the vision and goals of the Dunedin City Council Biodiversity Strategy

d) The natural values that will be protected by the project

e) The urgency of the project

10 A brief synopsis of the Biodiversity Strategy and the National Priorities for Biodiversity Protection, referred to, respectively, in criteria a) above are provided in Attachment B.

Conditions of Grants

11 All successful applications will be subject to standard conditions, which will form part of an agreement between the landowner and the Council. It is noted that the Committee may impose additional conditions, where considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION

12 Table 1 below provides a summary of each of the applications, while Table 2 provides an assessment of each application against the funding criteria. Table 2 splits the applications between those that are associated with an ASCV or QEII covenant and those that are not. Further detail is provided about the purpose of each application and whether the applicant has previously sought funding from the Biodiversity Fund.

13 All of the applications meet all or some of the fund criteria. Four applications involve work carried out in ASCVs or covenants. All applications are consistent with the purpose of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund.

Table 1 - Summary of applications to the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund

Applicant	Location	Type of project	Funding requested	Covenant	ASCV	Meets fund criteria	Duration of Project
*2018-01* Initial Volco Trust	606 Mt Cargill Road	Revegetation	$3600	Yes	Yes	Yes	Few
*2018-02* Proprietors of the Purakaunui Block	Purakaunui Saltmarsh	Saltmarsh restoration	$5000	No	No	Partially	3 years (staged)
*2018-03* Otago Peninsula Biodiversity Trust	Otago Peninsula	Lizard baseline survey	$5000	Yes	Yes	Yes	1 year
*2018-04* Otago Tramping and Mountaineering Club	680 Flagstaff-Whare Flat Rd	On-going rehabilitation of Ben Rudd’s	$3000	Yes	No	Yes	On-going
*2018-05* Katie Barns	3048 Waitati-Waikouaiti Road	Weed control and revegetation	$5000	Yes	No	Yes	1 months
*2018-06* Edwin Chapple	15 Darnell St Shiel Hill	Riparian fencing and revegetation	$3792	No	No	Partially	1 year

Table 2 - A comparison of each application to the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund against the funding criteria

*Application*	*Criteria*				*Amount requested*
	*Significance of site in terms of:*		*Contribution towards Biodiversity Strategy*	*Natural values to be protected*
	*District Plan Criteria*	*National Priorities for Biodiversity Protection*	*Contribution towards Biodiversity Strategy*	*Natural values to be protected*
Projects involving work on sites containing or adjoining a QEII covenant or ASCV
*2018-01* Initial Volco Trust	ASCV and QE2	None mentioned	- Increase community (and private organisations) involvement and responsibility in biodiversity conservation.	- Native bush will be established and enhanced	$3600
*2018-03* Otago Peninsula Biodiversity Trust	ASCVs and QE2 included the study	National priority 1- threat category acutely threatened. -National priority 4- habitat of acutely or chronically threatened species	- Increase community involvement and responsibility in biodiversity conservation. - Establish and monitor state of biodiversity - Reverse the decline and enhance Dunedin’s unique environment	- Assist in management outcomes that will result in - Increase abundance and diversity of native species - Enhance habitat for native species - Protect native species	$5000
*2018-04* Otago Tramping and Mountaineering Club	QE2		- Increase community involvement and responsibility in biodiversity conservation. - Reverse the decline and enhance Dunedin’s unique environment	- The control of exotic species will assist the regeneration of indigenous species in the area	$3000
*2018-05* Katie Barns	QE2	National priority 1- threat category acutely threatened.	- Reverse the decline and enhance Dunedin’s unique environment	- Freshwater habitat and quality will be improved.	$5000
Total for applications that fully met the criteria					$16,600
Projects that partially met the criteria
*2018-02* Proprietors of the Purakaunui Block	Neither	National Priority 2: To protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands.	- Increase community involvement and responsibility in biodiversity conservation. - Establish and monitor state of biodiversity - Reverse the decline and enhance Dunedin’s unique environment	- Contribute to saltmarsh habitat - Habitat for wading birds - Eradication of unwanted exotic species.	$5000
*2018-06* Edwin Chapple	Neither	National Priority 2: To protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands.	- Increase community involvement and responsibility in biodiversity conservation. - Reverse the decline and enhance Dunedin’s unique environment	- Control of pest animal species - Assist in the conservation of four seabird species	$3792
Total for applications that are recommended to be partially funded					$8792

Applications that meet the funding criteria in part – projects on sites within or adjoining an existing covenant, ASCV or other protected area

14 Applications by Initial Volco Trust, Otago Peninsula Biodiversity Trust, Otago Tramping and Mountaineering Club and Katie Barns involve work carried out on ASCVs or covenanted land:

a) The application from Initial Volco Trust 2018-01 involves planting natives along the edge of a new road and an area recently cleared of gorse and macrocarpa. The applicant has previously received funding from the Biodiversity Fund. This is part of an ongoing project that is aimed at restoring the indigenous vegetation in the ASCV on this property.

b) The application from Otago Peninsula Biodiversity Trust 2018-03 aims to establish baseline data on lizard presence and abundance. This will be used to assess the effectiveness of future multiple pest control. The applicant has previously received money from the Biodiversity Fund.

c) The application from Otago Tramping and Mountaineering 2016-04 is for on-going rehabilitation work carried out on Ben Rudd. Funding is required for weed control and the use of a drone to identify emergent weed species amongst dense bush and scrub. The applicant has previously received funding from the Biodiversity Fund.

d) The application from Katie Barns 2018-05 involves the fencing of a stream that runs into a QEII covenant associated with the Merton Tidal Arm of the Waikouaiti River. The fund will contribute to a three wire electrified fence. The applicant has previously received money from the Biodiversity Fund.

Applications that meet the funding criteria in part

15 Applications by Proprietors of the Purakaunui Block and Edwin Chapple meet the fund criteria in part.

a) The application from the Proprietors of the Purakaunui Block 2018-02 involves the eradication of weed species and the establishment of native saltmarsh species. This application is part of an ongoing project that is attempting rehabilitate the Purakaunui Saltmarsh. The applicant has previously received money from the Biodiversity Fund.

b) The application from Edwin Chapple 2018-06 involves the fencing and revegetation of a stream that feeds Tomahawk Lagoon. The funding will be used to purchase material necessary for fencing and planting. The applicant has not previously received funding from the Biodiversity Fund.

OPTIONS

16 The Committee could choose to fund the above projects up to the full amount requested or choose not to fund them, as it sees fit.

NEXT STEPS

17 Following the Committee’s decision related to the above projects the applicants will be notified of the outcomes.

18 The next funding round will be advertised in September 2018.

Signatories

Author:

Garreth Kyle - Research and Monitoring Officer

Authoriser:

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Applications to the Biodiversity Fund for April 2018	18
b	Background to the Dunedin City Council Biodiversity Strategy and National Priorities for Biodiversity Protection	97

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report relates to providing a public service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

The Biodiversity Fund contributes to Goal 2 (Dunedin has a healthy environment) and Goal 3 (Dunedin people care for the natural world) of the Environment Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known implications for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

The projects considered in this report will contribute positively to the long-term sustainability of the natural environment of Dunedin.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

A total of $25,392 has been requested by the applicants. There is $30,000 allocated for funding in the April 2018 round of the Biodiversity Fund.

Significance

This decision is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

A number of the grants relate to Community Board areas – i.e. Peninsula and Waikouaiti Coast.

Grants Subcommittee

21 May 2018

Dunedin Biodiversity Fund - Final Reports on Completed Projects

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the grants that have been completed since the September 2017 funding round.

2 Five project reports have been received from recipients of the previous funding rounds of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund. The final reports were presented to satisfy the grant conditions and outline how the projects were completed. There is a total of $911.56 in unclaimed funding from the five projects completed since the September 2017 subcommittee meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Subcommittee:

a) Notes the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund – final reports on completed projects.

BACKGROUND

3 The Dunedin Biodiversity Fund was established in August 2007 with the following purpose: “To maintain a network of viable habitats and ecosystems in Dunedin by encouraging and supporting those landowners who are committed to protecting, enhancing and managing indigenous biodiversity.”

4 All successful applicants to the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund are required to enter into a formal agreement with the Dunedin City Council on receipt of the grant which specifies conditions that must be met in accepting the grant. The conditions require applicants to provide a final report on completion of the project to satisfy release of grant monies. Six final reports have been received since September 2015.

DISCUSSION

5 The September 2013, April 2017 and September 2017 funding rounds approved grants for the following projects that have now been completed:

a) Save The Otago Peninsula Bio-092013/04 received $2558 towards the containment of Darwin’s barberry.

b) Braes Farm Bio-2017-10 received $940 towards planting on the Waikouaiti River.

c) The proprietors of the Purakaunui Block Bio-2017-04 received $1030 towards pest saltmarsh restoration.

d) David Swete-Kelly Bio-2017-07 received $4576.90 towards revegetation of Ara Kotare Wetlands.

e) Otago Peninsula Biodiversity Trust Bio-2017-14 received $5000 towards funding for a research student.

6 The documents received indicate that all the above projects have been successfully completed consistent with their applications. Invoices presented for the projects are within the funding amounts requested and granted, with some less than the grant amount. Full copies of the grant release reports are included in Attachment A.

Unclaimed Monies

7 Following the release of grant money for the above projects there are no unclaimed monies.

8 There is no money available for re-allocation to the April 2018 funding round.

Conclusions

9 All projects have been undertaken consistent with the approved applications and have been completed successfully, contributing to the purpose of the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund and the protection, enhancement and management of biodiversity in Dunedin.

OPTIONS

10 No options presented as this report is for noting.

NEXT STEPS

11 Continued administration of the Biodiversity Fund and oversight of projects.

Signatories

Author:

Garreth Kyle - Research and Monitoring Officer

Authoriser:

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Grant release reports received since November 2017	102

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report relates to providing a public service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

The biodiversity fund contributes to biodiversity enhancement and protection, which are goals in the environment strategy and spatial plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known implications for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

The projects considered in this report will contribute positively to the long-term sustainability of the natural environment of Dunedin.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations.

Significance

This decision is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

A number of the projects were carried out in Community Board areas – i.e. Peninsula and Waikouaiti Coast.

Grants Subcommittee

21 May 2018

Expenditure of Rates Relief Grants 2017 / 2018

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report, for noting, updates the Grants Subcommittee on the administration of the Rates Relief Grant scheme for the 2017/18 financial year.

2 The Grants Subcommittee has delegated the authority to assess and approve Rates Relief Grant applications to the relevant Community Advisor, who administers the fund according to the Grants Policy 2015 guidelines (Attachment A).

3 In the 2017/18 financial year 158 organisations received a total of $497,685.14 in Rates Relief Grants. The list of recipients is appended in Attachment B.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Grants Subcommittee:

a) Notes the administration and expenditure of Rates Relief Grants in the 2017/18 year.

BACKGROUND

4 Historically, the Rates Relief Grant has been paid to not for profit organisations that apply and meet the criteria outlined within the Grants Policy 2015. The not for profit organisation is required to pay their rates assessment in full each year. If they qualify for the Grant, then for a period of three years a percentage of the rates they paid will be returned to them annually as a grant.

5 To be eligible for a Rates Relief Grant a group or organisation must

· Benefit primarily Dunedin residents

· Make their facility available for wider community use (either through attendance of programmes/services or by hireage)

· Provide verification of their year’s rating obligations

· If an organisation or group is deemed to be fully non-rateable under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, then it is ineligible to receive a rates relief grant

DISCUSSION

6 In 2017/18, a total budget of $515,700.00 was allocated to Rates Relief Grants. During the year 158 organisations received a total of $497,685.14 in Rates Relief Grants. No organisations were declined grants. Staff are aware of one further application awaiting assessment between now and June 30 2018. However, there is $18,014.86 available within the budget should any new applications be made.

OPTIONS

7 There are no options. The report is for noting only.

NEXT STEPS

8 Community Development staff will process new applications as they are presented by organisations and report back on these in May 2019.

Signatories

Author:

Paul Coffey - Community Advisor

Authoriser:

Joy Gunn - Manager Events and Community Development

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Rates Relief Grants Criteria from Grants Policy 2015	148
b	Rates Relief Grants Paid 2017-18	149

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision relates to providing local infrastructure and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective, by reducing the cost to not for profit organisations that own or rent their premises.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

Assistance through the Rates Relief Grants contributes to building better communities at a geographic and communities of interest level. This funding supports delivery of outcomes within Social Wellbeing, Ara Toi and Parks and Recreation Strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

No known impacts for tangata whenua. Rates relief for Maori land is made under separate local government policy.

Sustainability

With 158 organisations supported in their activities to the community social wellbeing, arts and culture and recreational activity is supported and a contribution made to organisations’ financial sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no issues in relation to our LTP / Annual Plan or Finance or Infrastructure Strategies

Financial considerations

The Rates Relief Grants are an ongoing budget item. Expenditure in the 2017/18 year is within the budget allocated $515,700.00.

Significance

The decision to provide Rates Relief Grants has been assessed as having low significance under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Communication has been made with the recipients and any group seeking a grant.

Engagement - internal

Finance for payment of the grants and other departments as appropriate for particular organisation applications.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known legal risks

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for community boards.

Grants Subcommittee

21 May 2018

City Service and City Project Grants 2017/18

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report which is for noting, details the grants allocated through the City Service and City Project grants fund in 2017/18 (Appendix A).

2 The report notes that four organisations had not completed their required accountability reports as at 7 May 2018; a month following the 3 April reporting deadline. Staff are following up with these organisations.

3 The report also provides information on changes to the operating status of Connect South and the Fortune Theatre, which were both grant recipients in the 2017/18 year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the report on the City Service and City Projects Grants in 2017/18.

BACKGROUND

4 City Service Grants provide financial support to social, arts, sports and recreation, environmental and heritage organisations that take a key and unique role in supporting the city to achieve its strategic goals and ultimately ensure Dunedin is one of the world’s great small cities.

5 City Project Grants provide grants over $5,000 for key projects that directly contribute to the achievement of the Council's priorities as outlined in its strategic documents. Preference will be given to initiatives that meet the goals of more than one DCC strategy.

6 Both of these grants are administered under the Grants Policy 2015.

7 The Grants Subcommittee determined the allocation of the 2017/18 City Service and City Project grants at its July 2017 meeting. The total grant pool of $494,800 was allocated to 26 organisations.

8 All City Service and City Project grant recipients were made aware of the requirement for reporting when grant payments were made in 2017.

9 In December 2017 Council committed $70,000 of the grant pool to the Fortune Theatre following a request for additional financial support.

DISCUSSION

10 The 26 organisations that received grants were asked on the 6 March 2018 to complete accountability reports by 3 April 2018. Ten organisations were late responding, with four not completing their accountability at the time of writing this report. Staff are following up with these organisations to ensure reports are provided before the Subcommittee considers the 2018/19 City Service and City Project grants.

11 In addition, two organisations which have been long term recipients of grants funding (Connect South and the Fortune Theatre) have undergone significant changes.

Connect South

12 Connect South has been through a significant change in staff and structure. This was announced in December 2017 with all staff being made redundant. Connect South accounted for its expenditure early in the year but has not reported on outcomes. Connect South is in discussions with a number of other organisations around potential partnerships for future sustainability. Council staff have provided advice and offered facilitation support and will continue to engage with the organisation’s board as it determines if it has a future role within the city.

Fortune Theatre

13 In May 2018 the Fortune Theatre announced its operation would close and has made its staff redundant. A number of staff within Council are assisting the organisation around this process. The organisation will hold a special AGM shortly to determine its next steps.

OPTIONS

14 There are no options as the report is for noting only.

NEXT STEPS

15 Staff are following up with organisations which have not yet reported on their 2017/18 funding. The City Service and City Project grant round for 2018/19 is open until 25 May 2018, and staff are assisting organisations with information and advice. Staff will provide applications and recommendations to the Grants Subcommittee for its June meeting.

Signatories

Author:	Joy Gunn - Manager Events and Community Development
Authoriser:	Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	2017-18 City Service and City Projects Reporting	157

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

City Service and City Project grants provided to organisations support a wide range of Community Outcomes; in particular those related to the Social Wellbeing, Ara Toi and Parks and Recreation Strategies. Grants are made under the DCC’s Grants Policy 2015.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific implications and impacts for tangata whenua through the grants process.

Sustainability

Grants distributed support a number of peak bodies and city wide organisations to remain sustainable and deliver services to those most at need. Community outcomes are also supported.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Funding for this grant fund is included within the 10 Year Plan and Annual Plan. Current funding levels do not meet demand; and this remains a challenge for all Council grant schemes.

Financial considerations

In 2017/18 the Grants Subcommittee funded 26 organisations through the $494,800 fund. Four organisations had not returned required accountability reports by 7 May; a month following the deadline. These are being followed up. In addition two organisations which have been long term recipients of grants funding (Connect South and the Fortune Theatre) have undergone significant changes. One organisation has made its entire staff redundant but continues to operate. The other has made its staff redundant and is not operating.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Staff have been engaging with all grants recipients and groups interested in applying to provide advice and information.

Engagement - internal

Community Development, Arts, Parks and Governance staff work to support this grants process.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no current risks staff are aware of outside the changes to large organisations noted within the report, and the follow up required to obtain late reporting. From discussions with these organisations it appears both have utilised the 2017/18 grants for the purposes intended.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Grants Subcommittee

21 May 2018

Criteria for Place Based Community Grants

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides the Grants Subcommittee with the draft criteria for the new Place Based Community Grants scheme approved as part of the 10 Year Plan. Feedback from the Subcommittee will be provided to Council who will consider the criteria on 29 May 2018.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Considers the Place-Based Community Grant Criteria in Attachment A and provides comments to Council.

BACKGROUND

2 $300k was approved for the Place Based Community grant scheme in the 10 year plan, following Council deliberations. Criteria are now required for the administration of the fund.

DISCUSSION

3 In developing the Place Based Community Grants (PBCG) criteria, staff sought feedback from a wide range of groups and individuals.

4 Feedback received is summarised below:

· Council’s support for place-based activity was positively received.

· Larger PBCGs outlined that their significant achievements were due to significant previous investment (primarily from the Department of Internal Affairs). These groups believed ongoing significant investment is warranted based on this evidence.

· The grant was seen as an opportunity for Dunedin to take an investment approach to its own wellbeing and local leadership, through proven capability building approaches.

· Proposed partial grant funding is limiting, and core funding and not contestable funding of PBCGs should be provided.

· The proposed upper limit of $30,000 in the draft circulated is too low and the overall fund size could be larger.

· Multi-year funding should be available.

5 Amendments were made to the criteria based on PBCG feedback.

6 The request for Council to provide core, non-contestable funding of PBCGs is at odds with the DCC’s existing Grants Policy 2015. Under the Policy the Council is defined as a “complementary rather than a primary funder, priority (being) given to organisations that can demonstrate they are seeking other sources of funding”. The Policy specifies that applicants for Community Grants must contribute at least 30% of the cost of their project. The 30% can come from other sources, eg central government, philanthropic trusts and sponsorship.

7 The DCC’s Grants Policy does provide funding for operational costs, eg salaries and overheads, which some other funders do not assist with.

8 The request for multi-year funding was considered. While this has merits for groups in terms of assurances of mid-term funding, under the Grants Policy multi-year funding is available only for the City Service / City Project. Multi-year funding could be considered within a wider review of grants currently taking place.

9 Some PBCGs expressed concerns, such as maintaining authenticity through continuity, and the effect of limited funding on their ability to recruit and retain skilled staff. These views had merit but are concerns shared with most groups working within the not-for-profit community sector. These issues may be better addressed by a longer term solution as they have both political and fiscal implications. The present proposed criteria aim to provide workable tools for immediate need.

10 As some place PBCGs co-exist with Community Boards the criteria allows for grants to PBCGs within Community Board areas. Community Boards are not eligible.

11 Under the criteria PBCGs would be expected to evidence community engagement and support for their work. This could be demonstrated through results of surveys, hui etc. Groups would also be expected to report back to Council through an annual Accountability process, which already exists for recipients of Community and City Service / City Project grants.

12 Community capacity and capability building would also need to be demonstrated.

13 Staff would administer the grant in line with the Council’s Grants Policy. A minimum of two monitoring visits annually to each group would be undertaken.

OPTIONS

14 Council has included PBCG funding in the 10 year plan. Criteria are therefore required and are now presented to the committee for consideration, and discussion prior to consideration by Council.

NEXT STEPS

15 Following consideration by the Subcommittee, the criteria will be provided to Council at its meeting of 29 May 2018.

Signatories

Author:

Joy Gunn - Manager Events and Community Development

Authoriser:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Draft Criteria Place Based Grants Scheme	164

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision will guide the process for Council funding through a new Community Grant to support the development of locally owned visions and goals, and increased local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of communities, by resourcing Community-led development by Place Based Groups.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

Place-based Community Groups (PBCGs) as defined in the criteria have an interest in all aspects of community life, from city infrastructure as it relates to a specific locality, to the wellbeing of residents and quality of life matters, to recreation and creative activity. As a result they will be interested in all eight City strategies, while actively assisting to progress the delivery of the four “Wellbeing” Strategies (Social Wellbeing/ Economic Development/ Environment/ Ara Toi, Parks and Recreation).

Māori Impact Statement

There is no specific reference within this report to tangata whenua, but any work undertaken by PBCGs should recognise the needs and strengths of Maori within communities.

Sustainability

PBCGs are expected to have a positive impact on all aspects of sustainability, especially social and environmental, as local groups intimately concerned with their immediate neighbourhoods. A number of the larger groups are exploring social enterprises to help with the financial security of their operation and, while these are not likely to have major impact on the local economy, they could become significant activities locally.

Funding currently proposed is for a three-year period, while longer term funding and support models for PBCGs are explored. It is anticipated any change to this model would be made from 2021/22.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Funding is pending a final decision by Council within the 10 year plan deliberations process.

Financial considerations

$300,000 per annum is included in current draft 10 Year Plan process. Financial considerations for all departments supporting communities need to be further considered before any longer term change is made. As an example the Porirua Village Model utilises OPEX and CAPEX funding from different Council departments to support PBCG work.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as at this time staff will implement actions in the short term. A report on longer term actions will be provided in December 2019.

Engagement – external

Draft criteria were circulated to 35 individuals representing both formal and informal place based groups. People were invited to provide feedback in a variety of ways (phone, email and face to face meetings). In the week to April 13 2108, three separate meetings were held to gather feedback on the draft criteria, coinciding with 10 Year Plan Council hearings, where some groups also presented their views. 12 people provided feedback.

Engagement - internal

Limited internal engagement has taken place to date, with Policy. In line with earlier adopted recommendations, significant internal engagement will follow over the next three years exploring options for a long term Council strategy to support place-based community development.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks to the proposed actions.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards will not be eligible for funding but PBCGs working within their boundaries can apply for funding.

Chairperson	Cr Aaron Hawkins
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Andrew Whiley
Members	Nick Austin	John Barkla
	Alison Copeman	Amanda Dyer
	Cr Christine Garey	Jonathon Hendry
	Cr Marie Laufiso	Hannah Molloy
	Leeanne Phillips	Lois Scott
	Desiree Williams

Author:	Rebecca Murray - Governance Support Officer
Authoriser:

	Title	Page
a	Small Project, Neighbourhood Matching and Arts Grants Approved by the Chair	142

	Title	Page
a	Declaration of Interest	7