|
|
Grants Subcommittee
18 September 2025
|
Part
A Reports
2025/2026 Place Based Community Grant Applications
Department: Community Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
Grants Subcommittee is delegated to allocate the Place-Based Fund for the
2025/26 year on behalf of Council.
2 The
Grants Subcommittee’s delegations are outlined in the Dunedin City
Council (DCC) Committee Structure and Delegations Manual (2023).
3 A
total of $490,000 was approved in the 9-year plan 2025-2034 for the Place-Based
Community Grants Fund in the 2025/26 year.
4 In
August 2025, 10 place-based groups have applied to the DCC’s Place Based
Fund (see Attachment A).
5 In
total, the applicants have applied for $676,906.89 (38%) from a total of just over
$1.7million related to their annual operational costs. Last year, place based
groups applied for around 26% of their annual operational costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Subcommittee:
a) Decides the Place-Based
Community Fund grants to be allocated in the 2025/26 financial year.
BACKGROUND
6 On
6 August 2024, an update report on Place-Based Community Groups (PBCGs) was
presented to the Civic Affairs Committee. Over the past 12 months, each PBCG
has also presented to the Civics Affairs Committee to better share their local
stories and insights.
7 PBCGs
undertake community-led development in communities and suburbs, with the
purpose of improving the lives and wellbeing of residents. In 2024, the
Subcommittee approved funding for 10 PBCGs across Ōtepoti/Dunedin.
8 Each
PBCG is structured in a manner that best reflects the community that they
serve, and the geographical area where they work and deliver their activities.
Some are Charitable Incorporated Societies, others are Charitable Trusts, one
is a voluntary informal group that is supported by an ‘umbrella
charitable entity’ to administer its funding.
9 PBCGs
deliver activities and services in their local community which are
geographically defined. They are resident-led, with a focus on meeting diverse
needs by strengthening local relationships through the delivery of services
and/or activities, such as improving transport options and green spaces within
their local area.
10 PBCGs have
been operating in Ōtepoti / Dunedin for several decades, with some local
groups growing and others retracting over time as key local people join and
leave.
11 The
DCC’s Place-Based Community Grants Fund (Fund) was first approved at the
10-year plan 2018–2021 deliberations, with $300,000 budgeted annually as
a means of supporting community wellbeing. The Fund was increased to
$400,000 in the 2021 – 2031 10-year plan deliberations along with
approval for annual increases of $30,000 from 2022/23, with the Fund reaching a
maximum of $550,000 in 2026/27.
12 Last year,
Council resolved to not increase the Place-Based Funding pool for the 2024/25
financial year (CNL/2024/124). In accordance with Council’s decision, the
Subcommittee approved $460,000 for 10 PBCGs for the 2024/25 financial
year.
13 During the
DCC’s 9-year plan deliberations, Council confirmed the budget for Place
Based groups at $490k per year, and resolved to not increase the fund;
|
Place Based
Funding
|
|
|
|
Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve
Walker):
That the Council:
a) Increases
the Place Based Funding pool by
$30,000 for the 2025/26 year to $520,000, and then by a further $30,000 in
the 2026/27 year to $550,000. The fund would then remain at $550,000
per annum.
The Council
voted by division
For:
Crs
David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso and Steve
Walker (5).
Against:
Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker,
Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Brent Weatherall,
Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (9).
Abstained:
Nil
The division
was declared LOST by 9 votes to 5
|
DISCUSSION
DCC Place
Based Fund and Summary of Applications received for 2024/25
14 Applications
to the Fund for the 2025/26 financial year opened 1 July 2024 and closed on 31
August 2024.
15 Applications
for multi-year grants from the Fund were not available this round, as staff
wait for Council’s direction following the DCC’s Grants Review.
16 In total,
10 applications were received for the 2025/26 Fund round from PBCGs. The
applications are for a contribution towards the group’s operational costs
including wages and salaries over the next 12 months. The applications are from
the same 10 PBCGs who received funding last year, and no applications from
‘new’ place-based groups were received.
17 Based on
the financial data from PBCGs, they showed annual expenses of just over $1.7
million across the 10 PBCGs, which is a reduction from the $2 million annual
expense figure noted in 2024.
18 The total
amount that the 10 PBCGs have applied for from the Fund is $676,906.89 which is
an increase from the 2024 figure of $533,307.28. This increase is due to some
PBCGs wanting to respond to local community needs by growing their services and
other PBCGs noting a reduction in other grant funds in their budgets.
19 The range
of grant amounts applied for in the 2025/26 Fund range from $7.8k on the low
end, through to the highest amount of $130k. The median amount applied for is
$67k which is greater than the median of $53k in 2024.
20 From
reviewing the PBCGs financial information (Statement of Performance), this
showed that all 10 PBCG applicants are sourcing funding from other funding
entities and/or generating funding from activities and services. In analysing
their annual expenses, eight PBCGs have requested a grant for less than 70%
related to last year’s expenses. Two PBCGs have requested more than 70%
of their previous year’s costs but they have also shown they are sourcing
income from other funders and contribute voluntary hours, as detailed in their
2025/26 budgets.
21 To be
eligible to apply to the Fund, each PBCG must confirm that they are
contributing to at least 30% of their projected costs (which they detail in
their budgets). Nine PBCGs included these details in their budgets, with one
group including their contribution of volunteer hours as well as budget details
in order to meet the criteria.
22 Staff have
verified that all 10 PBCGs that have applied to the 2025/26 Fund meet the
DCC’s eligibility grant criteria and that they are focussed on providing
wellbeing and building resilience among their local community. This view by
staff has been established through:
· reviewing
each of the PBCG’s accountability report in relation to previous Council
funding,
· visiting
each of the PBCGs over the past 12 months,
· interaction
with PBCG’s staff and governance representatives, and
· engagement
with local residents who have participated in activities with local PBCGs.
Summary Data and Analysis related to the 10
Applicants
23 The
complete applications, related documents, and staff’s individual
assessment related to each PBCG have been made available to the Subcommittee
for their information.
24 A summary
of each applicant’s details including key data, is provided to the Grants
Subcommittee in (Attachment A).
25 In the
past, staff have proposed grant amounts using the budget and some assessment of
each group’s needs to determine a specific recommendation. Although the
final decision remained with the Subcommittee, this approach did not always
provide the Subcommittee with a strong rationale as to how the suggested
amounts for each PBCG were determined. Staff also did not provide options to
the Subcommittee to consider fully funding or to decline a group’s
application.
26 Similar to
the approach applied last year, staff have prepared analysis options in order
to support good governance discussion and decision making by the Subcommittee
members. The frameworks are;
a) Equality:
all applicants are allocated funding the same way, regardless of their needs or
the needs of the communities that they work with. The budget is divided based
on equal allocations and in regard to what they’ve applied for.
b) Equity:
each PBCG is assessed in relation to a range of equity needs based on the needs
of the communities that they are working with. This framework also
considers each PBCG’s capability and capacity in meeting those needs.
c) Needs
Assessment: key community-led areas were noted and reviewed with each PBCG
and their application’s focus. The rationale is that each PBCG is on a
journey in strengthening its community-led approach. Staff produced a
‘heatmap’ of each PBCG showing its needs. Staff also identified
what support and resourcing could be applied within Council’s remit to
grow a PBCG’s community-led approach.
d) Mixed
method: Combines all of the approaches above (that is, A, B and C) to
determine grant allocations while also considering what each PBCG received last
year.
27 In applying
the analysis options, the approved budget for the Fund remained a key
determining factor.
Summary of
findings
28 In summary,
there are many different ways to rationalise how to distribute funds depending
on what aspects the Subcommittee deem as important.
29 The analysis
suggests that in recognising a PBCG’s development needs and equity
challenges, there are PBCGs that can be prioritised to be fully funded in
regard to their grant applications. The analysis was also used to check for the
potential risk of under-funding.
30 In
completing the analysis, staff propose that there are no PBCGs who should be
‘not funded’ as each are providing value for their communities and
meeting local community needs.
OPTIONS
31 There are no
options as the Subcommittee has the delegation to allocate grants funds.
NEXT STEPS
32 Staff
will notify applicants of the Subcommittee’s decisions and administer the
Fund in accordance with the DCC’s Grants Management Policy and processes.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Gina Hu'akau - Community Partnerships Manager
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Nadia Wesley-Smith - Corporate Policy Manager
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
⇩a
|
Place Based Grants
2025/2026 Summary of Applicants
|
31
|
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose of Local Government
This decision supports democratic local
decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.
This decision promotes the social,
economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present
and for the future.
|
|
Fit with strategic framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
✔
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Economic Development Strategy
|
✔
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
✔
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
✔
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Future Development Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Integrated Transport Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Parks and Recreation Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Other strategic projects/policies/plans
|
✔
|
☐
|
☐
|
The activity of PBCGs supports many of the DCC’s
plans and strategies. Some PBCGs are also being asked to offer their advice
in regard to Parks, Transport and Planning and have participated in DCC
forums.
|
|
Māori Impact Statement
The majority of PBCGs work alongside Māori
whānau in their local areas. A few PBCGs have engaged or are engaging
with their local Marae, others are yet to develop their relationships with
mana whenua or mātāwaka communities. Āraiteuru Marae is the
exception being a significant place for Māori and other communities in
Ōtepoti/Dunedin. Each of the PBCGs contribute to the values and outcomes
in Te Taki Haruru.
|
|
Sustainability
Many of the PBCGs are implementing sustainability
practices into their services and activities. This includes sustainability
plans related to how they grown community resilience, diversify their income
to support financial sustainability, and encouraging sustainable practices
related to transport, food resilience and waste minimisation.
|
|
Zero carbon
Broadly,
the PBCGs grant applications support the DCC’s Zero Carbon Policy in
that they support communities to reduce their carbon footprint through their
approach to sustainability and community projects that address climate
considerations.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure
Strategy
PBCGs deliver community-led development. Working in
partnership with the DCC means that many of the place-based activities relate
well the to the DCC’s LTP and Annual Plan key objectives.
|
|
Financial considerations
There are no financial implications. The budget for the
Fund has been approved by Council as part of the 9-year plan and budget.
|
|
Significance
There are no matters of significance.
|
|
Engagement – external
Staff have engaged with all of the PBCG applicants to
ensure that their information is correct for the Grants Subcommittee and to
understand the future aspirations of each PBCG.
|
|
Engagement - internal
The Community Partnerships Team are the lead department
for PBCGs and the Fund. Other departments were engaged with when needing to
verify information which included Māori Partnerships, Property, Parks
and Recreation, and Waste.
|
|
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.
There are no legal implications.
|
|
Conflict of Interest
There are no conflicts of interests.
|
|
Community Boards
The PBCGs who are operating within Community Board areas
have reported that they work well together despite having a different focus.
Community Boards advocate to the DCC on behalf of community needs as per
their terms of reference. PBCGs are independent of the DCC and deliver
activities and services that are community-led and developed, in order to
create or support positive change in their community.
|
